Custom Search

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Tim Ciani On Affordable Housing

This comment was under the Ademocracy Objectives post.
I know Tim Ciani stirs emotions when his name comes up so I thought it would be thought provoking to put this comment under a post.

Tim Ciani wrote-

It was I who wrote, "Lets face it most tenants have blemishes and behavior problems and thats why they rent.Everybody has a right to have a roof over their head and its the police and courts decision whether its a jail or regular housing.Meaning if someone is doing something illegal PUT THEM IN JAIL!!!!!!!!!!!" The city tries to adress crime through code enforcement and coming down on landlords who have tenants with behavior problems because its cheaper then hiring more cops.Think about it whats cheaper 10 code enforcement officers or 10 cops?If you take their housing away the city believes that these types a tenants will vacate the city and take their crime with them.But their wrong these tenants don't have much and sometimes family is all they got.So when we take their housing away from one we disrupt the whole family!Put it this way, you have a mom with a behavior problem with 4 kids. The city expects the landlord to evict the behavior problem---But wait how about the 4 kids, its their house too.So whose the victim?So in a nut shell if the city was so concerned about how a house or property looked they would have came down on Thune and others close to the city a lot harder.They aren't concerned with the structure but whats in it!When you tackle a problem indirectly they (THE CITY)will lose every time.YOU FIGHT CRIME WITH COPS AND COURTS NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TRYING TO DO BUSINESS.Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to rent to a person with a behavior problem.Should the city start going after real estate agents that sell houses to people with behavior problems.Wait they might allready!!!!!!!!Property is like gun control it seems like to St.Paul.Guns and properties running around killing people.

Good day,signed with my name.


7:39 PM

Tuesday, August 29, 2006


Excerpts from a comment to Rick Mon. This sums it up folks.

I pray the property rights issue would come to a satisfactory end for all parties concerned.

For me it would be the promise of thousands of units of "REAL" affordable housing. Something that someone earning $12.50 an hour could afford.

One of my objectives is to build the blog "Ademocracy". Not for myself but for the blue collar and low income citizens.

I want homeless people to comment.I plan on reaching out to this community.They could comment from a library, friends or families homes.

I want to add a Team feature so others can post topics. I want anyone and everyone that wants to have a voice feel free to speak out.

I promise not to moderate or censor. I want peoples personalities to speak for themselves.

I'm not concerned if a City official post or not. I know for a fact they will read as the site gains popularity. I know enough about politics to understand this.

And of coarse my main objective is to expand the circulation of the "Watchdog News Paper".

That's what this is all about. I am not an island. I have to unite with people who closely reflect my belief system so collectively we can have an effect on circumstances that concern us.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Ademocracy Announcement

Subject: [ademocracy] 8/28/2006 10:34:56 AM
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
I'm sure if people really knew the whole truth of the matter, they would be thinking differently. <(reference to the loss of affordable housing)

This site could be cross-referenced with the Watchdog site and the Watchdog paper should have this site down in writing so the neighbors to these city officials and affiliates can go to this site for updates and other stories. If I received the Watchdog paper and I was neighbors to the mayor or council members, I would want to know more. Then these people can even post questions that they are afraid to ask.

I think it would behoove this site, it's participants and future citizens or business owners in the city in being mad aware of this site. Instead of handing out all those fliers for Edemo, do it for your site! Then we can refer back to Edemo site so they can see for themselves how it serves the city not the citizen.

Bob> I just noticed this comment. Good advice.I can't tell others what they can and can't say. I personally will try very hard not to speak of "St. Paul Issues and Forums" again in a bad light.It was stated by a volunteer of "St. Paul Issues and forums that a blog could work cooperatively with the forum". I agree. The simple truth is our blog can be a place where the unheard voices can be heard.I think it makes sense for me at least to just get on with our objectives and leave the baggage in the past.

I have decided to pass out 100000 invitations to this site from October thru December.To attract blue collar citizen. And give homeless people a voice.

I will also add a Team feature which will enable others to post with a title.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

NIMBY REPORT "Not In My Back Yard"

Please click onto the title of this post for the "NIMBY" news letter. The NIMBY Report can be linked on the side bar under "Deconcentrating Poverty" or the title of the post "Deconcentrating Poverty".

Search the site and you will find information about Minnesota's affordable housing. They mention Mary's new project with Catholic Charities (500 hundred units total for "down and outers" as they are referred to). However, like most things concerning affordable housing and crime, the City throws a band aide at a wound requiring 100 stitches

Deconcentrating Poverty and the Race to the Bottom

Please click onto the title of this post to read the Nimby Report. Very interesting stuff concerning whats going on with rental properties in the Twin Cities and other metropolitian areas.

I found the entire report interesting, however,Professor Goetz article on page 18 titled "Deconcentrating Poverty and the Race to the Bottom" really hit home with me.

I'd sure be interested in others opinion concerning this report.

Saturday, August 26, 2006


Edemocracy "St. Paul Issues and forums" thread>

Posted 25 Aug 2006 13:08 by Michael Fraase

On a tangential note, last fall Councilmember Benanav convened a
neighborhood meeting about "problem" properties in the neighborhoods around
Saint Thomas. One of the projects currently underway is that the city is in
the process of buying some number of these properties in order to remove
them from the rental market, and in doing so keeping the neighborhoods
stable for homeowners and non-transient renters.

I support the program.

I live on the edge of the Saint Thomas campus, and the difference between
the Saint Thomas and Macalester students is palpable, probably because
Macalester has a much more aggressive policy with regard to student behavior
in the community.

I'm wondering:

1) How this program managed to get around the taking issues in the law;
perhaps the city is paying market value, but if it's mandatory (I don't know
that it is) isn't that still a taking?

2) Can this program be extended to problem properties throughout the city?
Seems like a better alternative than demolition.

Acknowledging that I know little about these issues and the underlying law
governing them, I'm just wondering is all....

Michael Fraase

> -----Original Message-----
> From: chuckrepke
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 12:29 PM
> To: mcswope
> stpaul-issues
> Subject: Re: [SPIF] Feronia Avenue Building
> Here's the deal, the City does not have the power to "take"
> people's property without having a "public use" for it or
> without paying just compensation. The fifth amendment of the
> constitution makes it so. When the City demo's a blighted
> building it isn't "taking" anything. It is abating the
> property. It is removing blight. In effect it is removing a
> pile of rubbish and leaving the property in better condition
> than it was previously and it bills the land owner for
> providing the service. The land owner still owns his land
> and now it has been cleaned up for him.
> Though it might sound like a nice idea for the City to do
> "something" other than demo, it doesn't have that option. If
> the City were to "take" the property, improve it and sell it,
> they would be violating the constitution. The City has to
> have a public purpose, declare what that is and allow the
> owner the opportunity to go to court to determine "just
> compensation" prior to any of that occurring.
> With the new restrictions on eminent domain that the state
> just passed, the City may not be able to "take" any property
> for targeted redevelopment. So, in your scenario the Court
> might determine that there isn't a public purpose to the
> taking and allow the building to sit as is. The other end of
> that of course is that the courts have normally been very
> liberal on what a "just compensation" is. My guess is that
> the property on Feronia would get more money in court than it
> would on the private market by a considerable amount.
> Chuck Repke
> Ward 2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mcswope
> To: efq
> Sent: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [SPIF] Feronia Avenue Building
> Tom Goldstein/Elysian Fields Quarterly
> In other words, perhaps the city needs to see if there are
> legal ways to expand it's enforcement options"
> I think Tom is onto something here. If your lawn is unmowed,
> the city has the authority to mow it for you and bill you for
> it. The case odf a building like the Feronia Ave. building is
> obviously more complicated than mowing a lawn but perhaps
> some procedure short of demolition could be added to the
> city's arsenal.
> I'd suggest looking at some kind of rceivership procedure.
> When a property is obviously not being taken care of but can
> be salvaged, perhaps there could be a proceeding whereby a
> receiver is appointed with power to authorize needed repairs
> or sell the building to someone who will do the necessary
> work. The owner would then be given back the building or the
> sales proceeds. The costs would be assessed against the
> property as a special assessment. Is this a drastic remedy.
> Sure it is and should be used only in exceptional
> circumstances and with accountability, perhaps judicial
> review. But it seems better than tearing down a valuble
> building because of an incapable or obstinate owner.
> There was a second meeting last week to discuss the Feronia
> Ave,. building. I wasn't able to get to that meeting. Does
> anyone know what happened?
> Charlie Swope
> Ramsey Hill, Ward 2, St. Paul

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Watchdog News Delivery Update

I know that for those of you who have been victimized by the City's code enforcement it brings pleasure to you to know that we are informing people of these alleged allegations.

It's a "pressure valve" release of sorts, and is good for ones emotions.

I am happy to announce that I and my delivery staff passed out 1000 Watchdog News papers in the Mayors neighborhood yesterday. :-) Wow! We had to get the heck out of there, all those DOGS barking a warning wail. The noise was unbearable!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Why is the City buying A-1 Vacuum and 2 other Businesses on University Ave.?

This comment was originally posted under the Eminent Domain topic. I felt I should put it under a Title. If you have a comment that you would like posted with a title, go to my profile and link my email address and send it to me, I'll paste it for you.

Charlie Swope posted this at Edemocracy & anonymous posted it here at Ademocracy.

Anonymous said...
Posted 22 Aug 2006 09:13 by Charlie Swope

The city is buying out some businesses on University Ave. One property is a
pornography operation, another is the A-1 Vacuum Cleaner store and the third is
a liquor store. In addition to getting rid of the pornography shop, this is
apparently part of a new commercial development by the Welsh Cos. Does anyone
know the details of this? That is, how much will the developer be paying for
the property the city is acquiring?

I don't know what is going to be erected in the place of these businesses so
I'm not prepared to condemn this. But I will miss the A-! Vacuum Cleaner store.
They had the best inventory of parts in the area and were a goldmine of good
information. Just the kind of unique business that makes University Ave. a
facinating place and that is fast disappearing.

And while the pornography shop may be unappealing, one thing you have to say in
its favor is that patrons of these places tend to be quiet. If you object to
noise and must live next to a commercial establishment, you're better off
living next to a porn shop where the patrons go out of their way not to be
noticed and more or less sneak in and END

Is this guy for real? What is he preparing himself for in the decision to condemn? Aaaawwh, the poor vacuum cleaner store has to move, but I'm sure he was paid an adequate sum. How about all the people whose houses and investments were taken away, you know their homes! Maybe this person should live next to the porn shop if he thinks that it so much safer than a house with a broken switchplate cover. What is fast disappearing is affordable housing in the area, so who cares what they're building there. It's only going to line the pockets of the big developers, who I'm sure will profit big time with the amount that they spent aquiring the land that their retail/condo project sits on.

Wishy washy crime fighting.

Posted on Fri, Aug. 11, 2006
Neighborhoods target crime
Frogtown and North End programs aim to engage youths, secure communities
Pioneer Press
Two of St. Paul's community councils are tackling crime the way they know best — by being neighborly.

In the city's North End, District 6 council leaders are walking door to door to find vulnerable businesses and problem properties, secure a storefront along Rice Street for a group of crime-fighting ministers and recruit volunteers to support the thin staffs at area recreation centers.

In Frogtown, the home of the District 7 council, leaders are turning to the arts to help the ballooning youth population connect with neighborhood resources and, ideally, take an owner's pride in them.

The differing approaches have the mayor's support, through small grants, and represent the first efforts by both councils to deal with crime through their own programs. The councils have long served as liaisons with police and other nonprofit efforts to fight crime.

Both councils recently received $4,000 from the mayor's office to develop or expand projects designed to reduce crime and boost community safety. Others sharing in the $20,000 crime-fighting grant from the mayor are the East YMCA, Hmong American Partnership and Save Our Sons, an African-American role-modeling organization.

"We've always been involved with crime issues, but a lot of things are being brought to our attention now, especially with businesses, and we want to be active with it," says Kerry Antrim, a community organizer with the District 6 council. "Sometimes crime is as much about perception as reality, but we want to do something about it that changes perceptions and makes a real difference."

Even before receiving money from the mayor, both councils had stepped into crime-fighting mode. District 7 leaders commissioned a local performance poet to recruit, mentor and engage a handful of Frogtown youths about the Central Corridor and compose verse about what light- rail trains will bring and mean to the neighborhood. The youths performed their work in April, and strong feedback led organizers to put together summer classes on digital photography, hip-hop theater and painting. While studying these art forms, up to 15 students also are learning about various police initiatives in their neighborhoods.

"Part of the program is about asking the kids what it's like to live where they do, especially the hip-hop kids, and a lot of the feedback we get is just about trying to survive," says Boa Lee, a community organizer with the District 7 council. "Then we tell them about things happening in the neighborhood and ask them what they think we need more of here."

In the North End, organizers are conducting "environmental surveys" of area businesses — checking locks, lighting, landscaping and security cameras — for ways to make them more secure. They're also recruiting young adults to volunteer with area recreation centers to ensure they stay open during promised hours.

Such efforts might not have a direct, immediate impact on crime, Lee says, but they foster communication with people who otherwise have little contact with civic leaders.

"The kids are out there on the streets — walking to school or to work — and they're in a great position to really see what's happening out there and let us know," she says. "We're trying to get kids more involved in what we do here and figure out how to move them into community leadership positions."

Matt Peiken can be reached at or 651-228-5440.


I pasted this article from the "Communities United Against Police Brutality" news letter you can find a link to cuapb in the link section of this blog.

Philander Jenkins heads back to court this week for trial on charges that he falsely reported being brutalized by jail guards. Regular readers of this newsletter know that Philander was caught up on an MPD raid on a house just five minutes after arriving there. He was beaten and had his face stomped so badly that his jaw was fractured in multiple places. He was then taken to the Hennepin County jail and held for 10 days with no medical care. When his mother was able to raise the funds to bail him out, he was taken straight to the hospital and straight into surgery to have plates implanted in his jaw.

What followed after was a series of arrests and trials on false charges in order to dirty up Philander and prevent a lawsuit for his injuries and lack of medical care. While in jail awaiting one of the trials, Philander was assaulted by deputies, who smashed his head into the wall then pulled his pants down and inserted a hard object into his rectum. One of the deputies commented that they were getting him ready for prison life.

Philander was able to get word out to his mother of the assault and we swung into immediate action to get him a medical exam. He was seen at Hennepin County Medical Center and although they indicated that Philander had been sexually assaulted, we did not feel that the exam was thorough enough and his attorney petitioned the courts for an independent exam, which was initially granted. Deputies had other ideas though, and Philander was whisked away from Fairview Riverside Hospital just before a doctor could see him. Judge Katherian Roe, who granted the initial order, turned icy and refused a second order for an exam. Because of all of the delays, the opportunity for a real exam was lost.

A bogus BCA investigation followed, in which the inmate witnesses were never interviewed, Philander was given a hostile and limited interview and other key pieces of evidence were ignored. After the BCA predictably reported its findings of no wrongdoing by the deputies, Philander was charged with falsely reporting the attack.

There's two things wrong with this scenario: Philander never reported the attack to law enforcement officials (it was jail officials who reported it) and the attack actually happened. The county's case is all wet but they feel an obligation to go through the motions in yet another effort to avoid legal responsibility for the actions of their people.

Come to court this week to see dynamic duo super-attorneys Jill Clark and Jill Waite in action. Jury selection should conclude today and the trial should start in earnest tomorrow.

Philander Jenkins
Hennepin County Government Center
300 S 6th Street, Minneapolis
Hearing convenes daily at 9:00 a.m.
Check with the court information booth for courtroom number.
Check with our hotline 612-874-7867 for status of the trial.


Monday, August 21, 2006


Orwell, in fact, resembles his own picture of Charles Dickens: "... a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry."

That kind of character, scarce as it will always be, is why The Economist says Orwell's voice "speaks as urgently to our times as it did to his". >

Bob> I wish there were more Orwellian characters. The world would be a better place!


I guess we have established Jay Benanav is an adulteress. I feel for his wife & children. What a terrible error of judgement. It will be a very sad day if he is elected to a Ramsey County Judge position sitting in judgement of others when he makes so many judgemental errors.

Jay B. also stated "no amount of code enforcement is enough".

The City has 4 Racketeering law suits against it. The policies that brought these suits about are errors of judgement. It seems arrogance is the dish served at City Hall.

Remember Lee Helgen stating "Good News 14 E. Jessamine Demolished".These people need to be held accountable for their arrogance, it is time for a change.

Please feel free to "Take out Some Trash" in the comments of this topic.We may elaborate further on the subject matter revealed.

Eminent Domain

Posted for Educational Eminent Domain "takings" Compensation

House | Senate | Joint Departments and Commissions | Bill Search and Status | Statutes, Laws, and Rules

Eminent Domain: Regulatory Takings
Definition of a "taking"

Categorical or per se regulatory takings

Penn Central test

Minnesota's government enterprise or arbitration test

Development moratorium


Removal of nonconforming uses

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that private property must not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation. (The clause is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.) Under the Minnesota Constitution, article 1, section 13, private property must not be taken, destroyed, or damaged for public use without payment of just compensation.

Definition of a “taking.” The classic taking is a direct appropriation or physical invasion of private property. Since 1922, however, the courts have recognized that a state statute or local ordinance may impose restrictions or demands on the use of private property that are so onerous that it amounts to a taking and the government must compensate the owner. Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 125 S. Ct. 2074, 2081 (2005) (citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)). In these instances, called regulatory takings, the property owner brings an inverse condemnation action to compel the government to begin eminent domain proceedings and compensate the owner. A compensable regulatory taking may be temporary or permanent. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987).

Categorical or per se regulatory takings. There are two situations in which a court could find that a regulation is clearly a taking—a categorical or “per se” taking. First, if the regulation requires an owner to allow a physical invasion of the property, however minor, the owner must be compensated. Lingle, 125 S. Ct. at 2081 (citing Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (state law requiring landlords to permit cable TV companies to install cable facilities in apartment buildings held to be a taking)).

The second situation is when the regulation denies the owner of all economically viable use of the property and the regulation is not merely an explicit statement of common law limitations already present in the title. Lingle, 125 S. Ct. at 2081 (citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)).

Penn Central test. Apart from the two situations in which the Court would find a categorical taking or taking per se, there is little guidance on what constitutes a regulatory taking, and courts have relied on ad hoc factual inquiries. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978) (historical preservation designation limited development options for railroad station not a taking). In these cases, a court will analyze a regulatory takings claim under a three-part test in which the court, considering the parcel as a whole, looks at:

(1) the economic impact of the regulation on the owner;

(2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with distinct legitimate, investment-backed expectations; and

(3) the character of the government action—does it result in the equivalent of a physical invasion of the property or is it more a “public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.”

Id.; Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 109, 114-115 (Minn. 2003) (following Penn Central analysis, court held that the “cloud of condemnation” over Nicollet Mall property in Minneapolis due to drawn out conflict over proposed LSGI development was a taking).

The Court does not look at whether the regulation is an effective way to achieve the stated purpose; the focus is not on the government’s purpose (once public use or purpose is established), but on the impact on the property owner’s rights. Lingle, 125 S. Ct. 2074. Each of the tests for regulatory takings looks for the functional equivalent to an appropriation or physical invasion of private property. Id. at 2084.

Minnesota’s government enterprise or arbitration test. In general, a regulation that diminishes property value alone does not constitute a taking. In Minnesota, however, a regulation that is designed to benefit a government enterprise, such as an airport, and results in a substantial diminution in value, may be a taking. McShane v. City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. 1980) (airport safety zoning ordinance that limited development and caused a substantial and measurable decline in market value was a taking). When a regulation arbitrates between competing uses, the court looks at whether the regulation deprives the property of all reasonable uses before determining that it is a taking. Concept Properties, LLP v. City of Minnetrista, 694 N.W.2d 804, 823 (Minn. App. 2005) (“comprehensive planning objective [is] to balance many public interests and to promote the City’s particular land-use goals and rural values”), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

Development moratorium. Local governments have authority to impose a moratorium on development in order to protect the planning process. Minn. Stat. §§ 394.34, 462.355, subd. 4. During the moratorium, a property owner may have limited or no economically viable use of the property. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that under the federal constitution, a temporary regulation that denies all economically viable use of property is not a per se taking. The Court applies the Penn Central factors to determine if the regulation amounts to a compensable taking. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg. Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002); Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. App. 1992) (remanded for determination of whether moratorium constituted a taking under case-specific analysis of Penn Central).

Exactions. An exaction is a government requirement that a landowner dedicate land or a property interest, such as an easement, as a condition for granting a development permit. An exaction may be found to be a taking unless the government shows that there is an essential nexus between a legitimate government interest and the condition exacted. Assuming the nexus exists, there must also be a “rough proportionality” between the planned development and the required dedication. “No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391 (1994) (permit to expand a store and parking lot conditioned on the dedication of a portion of the property for a greenway pedestrian/ bicycle path held a taking); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 831-832 (1987) (permit to build a larger residence on beachfront property conditioned on dedication of an easement for public to cross a strip of property between owner’s seawall and the mean hide tide mark held a taking); see also Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976) (cited in Dolan); Kottshade v. City of Rochester, 357 N.W.2d 301, 307-308 (Minn. App. 1995) (citing Dolan analysis); Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subds. 2b and 2c (amended in 2004 to incorporate terms used in Dolan).

Removal of nonconforming uses. The 2006 Legislature enacted a number of significant changes to the statutes governing eminent domain in Minnesota. See Minn. Laws 2006, ch. 214, effective May 20, 2006, with certain exceptions. One of the changes requires a local government to compensate the owner of a nonconforming use if the local government requires its removal as a condition of granting a permit, license, or other approval for a use, structure, development, or activity. This provision does not apply if the permit, license, or approval is for construction that cannot be done unless the nonconforming use is removed. Minn. Stat. § 117.184.

August 2006

Return to Government: Local & Metropolitan
Return to House Research home

Posted by SharonScarrellaAnderson to ademocracy at 8/19/2006 09:27:31 AM

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Comments about Edemocracy

It's only fair to say that Edemocracy is a town hall meeting with "rules". It's not like a real town hall meeting where the citizens are allowed to "vent". One is suppose to be "respectful" there. You see they claim to keep the dialog respectful as to not run off members. So there is a trade off. Moderation that leads to sanctioning (censorship)of those who are deemed disrespectful. A segment of any community would be excluded from a town hall meeting under these terms. They would not have a voice in their community, due to the prejudices of a minority who complain. Now none of this would be important if it weren't for the fact that that Edemocracy is working it's way into city goverments here and across the world.Beauracracys are entrenched everywhere in our society and it's a disservice to citizens across america.> "Some of the comments below reference the police brutality my son received at the hands of the St. Paul PD".I deleted the original post when I deleted my blog. I hope this clarifies any confusion.

Posted by Bob to ademocracy at 8/19/2006 09:41:34 AM

Jay Benanav for Ramsey County Judge?

An anonymous poster left a comment suggesting Jay Benanav may have made some judgmental errors concerning his marriage and family. I'm asking this poster if he or she can elaborate on this issue?

1. What is the issue?
2. How long ago?
3. Is this an undeniable fact?

I am concerned because Jay B. Claims "no amount of code enforcement is enough" this is clearly one significant error in judgment and something like the accusations of this anonymous poster if true shows a pattern of making judgmental errors.

If these accusations are true it is a sad day indeed for our City with Jay B. being on the City Counsel and all. And to think he wants to sit in judgment of others.

A number of the comments posted here start with "Bob said" at the bottom of the post is the original author I re-posted these comments. Like I said in a post I deleted my blog over frustration concerning a number of issues.It's been a rough couple of weeks. I hope you all understand.