Custom Search

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Saint Paul/ City threatened owner to repair this building or they would demolish it.

594 Selby Avenue. (click onto photo to enlarge


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This appears to be a very bad blight on the neighborhood

11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's wrong with this? Looks pretty good to me, but then I'm not like the Lantrys and Helgens of the world and living in half million dollar houses either.

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This brings up a troubling question for the city in that maybe the house is tarrgeted for demolition because somebody wants that particular piece of land.

If combined with the vacant lot next door, it makes a big lot on the corner of Selby and Dale, which is extremely attractive.

6:23 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

The city council does not have right to tear down the homes.

They will be sue by home owner for
there bullshit. As taxeprayer I try to tell that. And I am not pay any increase because they dumb
asses. They have judge on their side right now. But, wait when
rest of people tell them that they are breaking the law.
And the judge get sue.

7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for exposing

Check the tax records, sold 2005 for $400,000.00 Owner SELBY DALE LLC 0151
SHOREVIEW MN 55126-2016

Another Bailout for nonprofit
?? Thanks for exposing apparant Covert marketing for nonprofits
copy and paste for URL

ID theft of private property @
Sounds complicated. But it’s no more complicated than the millions of dollars in mortgage fraud cases that Minnesota was targeted with in 2007, landing the state in the top 10 for mortgage fraud cases that year. FBI Special Agent Paul McCabe says that no cases of home stealing have been reported to the Minneapolis Division yet. But with foreclosures and abandoned homes on the rise, he warns to be on the lookout.

8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Do you think the nonprofits are pulling something here, looks like the land is worth more without a house. Who owns the adjoining vacant lot?

11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you people are so paranoid you should be locked up in a padded room. Don't look out the window there is black helicopters in the sky.

12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helgan lives is a very modest cape cod. he lives no better than his constituents. Lantry's home was bought years ago and I doubt its worth 500,000. She also lives no better than her constituents.

Both of these council members have spouses that work too, so the cost of the home is a joint thing.

Hell, I'm more than willing to bet their homes are less valuable than some of the bitchers and moaners on here.

Now about this property:
An LLC (Limited Liability Company) is not a non-profit hence the name Limited Liability Company. Its a for-profit entity.

This same Selby-Dale LLC is also owner of a proposed 53 unit, 116 stall complex on Selby to be developed by MYNE Property Development. Myne Property Development is a business ran by former Viking Ed McDaniel. They have several proposals in urban areas as well as developments that work well.

I'm will to bet dollars to donuts that this is part of the plan to have the 400,000 home (what a stretch for that place) removed and the complex to be developed since S-D LLC owns it all.

"MYNE Development identify, enhance, and capture the acquisition of the emerging urban real estate markets and foster economic opportunity for underserved residents (<---this can't be good for the slumlords) while maintaining the originality and character of the area. As the development company and construction manager of each project, we will employ a percentage of local minority persons as sub-contractors."

Couple of points you chowder-heads got wrong:

1. This is not some poor landlord being picked on by the city. It a business move by a private business.

2. This does not make your case, actually it does the opposite by showing the private sector is investing in the city as the slumlords leave.

3. Ed McDaniel's home is worth more than Lantry's and Helgan's.

Once again, proponents of the status quo in the rental business here are caught not knowing what they're talking about and putting forth evidence that makes the case for the opposition.

This condo complex will provide 15 times the tax base that was present before- at least.

Have a Good Day.


1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


So maybe Mr McDaniel is letting the inspections bunch remove the home rather than going through appropriate channels in the removal of a historically protected house through the Heritage Preservation Commission.

What Eric is eluding to is that by adapting a 'we'll scratch your back and you scratch ours' approach, the racketeers build key supporters among community councils and other people.

2:32 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...


So what right does a business
have in attempting to strong arm property from anyone.

Why doesnt that business just approach the owner and make an offer to sell.

Why must it always be a strong arm tactic,and to make matters worse, use the City as the strong arm thug to get it done ?

I believe that emminent domain might be employed so long as its serves a public purpose though I believe only the government can employ it.

I say do it right or don't do it at all.

Jeff Matiatos

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A lot of developers would strike it rich if they were only allowed to bend the rules. Maybe in addition to the city's chosen people, the city should let landlords make overdevelopments cramming in people like sardines. Then they can destroy more houses then ever to make room for these megadevelopments. This will improve the tax base for the city. But don't tell anyone, because some people will think its RICO related.

7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lantry and Helgen living no better than their constituinets? What a joke. Niether one of these 2 idiots know a damn thing about what their lower income comstituients life is like because they're busy trying to run them out of the city. Lantry lives in Battle Creek on the edge of the city and you expect us to believe that she knows anything about life on 3rd & Earl? Your nuts!

7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I know nothing about Mr. McDaniel. But, I remember some pretty bad press recently about his business. Here is a link to view some stuff:


I know nothing about his business and I don't trust the press, so these may not be fair! Regardless, I am surprised you would come out so strong for him.

Regards, Bill Cullen.

8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The blog truncated the url. I included it again (with two carriage returns -- which you must remove):

Bill Cullen.

9:00 PM  
Anonymous Bob Johnson said...

Hi All,

Here is an easy way to add a link to your comment.

1. where it states "choose an identity",check the name.

2. a yellow box will appear where you can type your name. Below this yellow box is a URL box. Paste your URL address in this box.

Always let folks know they can click onto the name example "Joe said" to get the URL address.

There is another way to enter a URL within a comment. I will take the time in the near future to explain how to do this. I just don't have time right now.

10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe someone is off base about Lantry and Helgen, but the issue still remains Eric that the city says this house is bighting the neighborhood and has to ne torn down. That IS NOT the case with this home. The problem is that they are not prefect like the quarter million dollars modest huts that Lantry and Helgen live in and these 2 birdbrains think it should be perfect. That's not reality.

10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They didn't like my 19_ caddy either because it looked to rusty and they towed it (STOLE IT) and I never saw it again.
The car was parked in the Summit neighborhood where I USED to live.
Guess the car wasn't a good fit for the neighborhood.
I posted this awhile back.

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're absoloutly right 11:06. This current bunch of city leaders like eberything asthetically perfect so they don't have to be reminded of the poor people they do nothing to help, but rather eveything they can to hinder in life.

11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:06 is Sharon and I believe she wouldn't register the car so after a year- well this ain't Wisconsin, no cinder block cars on the front lawn.

I don't care much about McDanial, he is not my point and you're once again leaning to ad hominem to counter a point. Here it is slowly once again:

Your argument that the city is driving out investment because of code enforcement is bogus. As you can see from your own example, they are private dollars waiting and willing to step in. That also kills your argument that PHA is the only wanted landlord.

You believe the sun revolves around the earth, don't you?

The owner of the that property- is also the same group involved with the development.

Chuck will probably have more info in the morning but, I'm thinking that the house was left unoccupied while the deal was being worked out and the city following procedures put it on the list regardless of future plans until there is a hearing.

Bob took this house off a list and created the title projecting the perception that the poor owner is under some type of duress from the city when in reality that facts may come out, and they probably will, to show that simply procedures are being followed like they are for everyone.

Do you people do any research before jumping off the cliff?


11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:06 is not Sharon and she didn't have a car on cinder blocks.

The point isn't that Bob is creating perxeptions Eric, the point is that the city is using unrealistic standards to demolish peoples homes. Now with Morris v Sax, they are also acting illegaly by declaring anything a vacant building, among other things.

12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was the house condemned in order for Mr. McDaniel to acquire it, or did he get it condemned after he bought it?

9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you crazy Eric? With the threat of the city going to tear down a persons house, don't you think they would be under some durress? Why would Bob have to create the perception when the city creates the real thing?

4:05 AM  
Anonymous resolution video here said...

67. Resolution - 08-547 - Ordering the owner to remove the building(s) at 594 Selby Avenue within thirty (30) days from adoption of resolution. (GS 3051022) (Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval)

Document: GS3051022-Res.594 Selby

The city code inspection made this house to costly to repair, this is what they do all over the city. pile on code compliance issues until they get the house torn down.

someone should contact this owner and see what he has to say.

9:10 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

Some of you may have noticed I removed this post several times.

After consultation and some thought I decided to leave it up to see if we can get to the truth behind this property.

We need to talk to the owner. I find it STRANGE he would pay $400,000 for a property just to demolish it.

7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll tell you what he has to say......the city is out to get him, just like everyone else they go after with this "demolish your house" thing they have going.

11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This makes sense if you factor in arrogance, conceit, and a feeling of being above the law.

Perhaps the owner was misadvised by city handlers.

6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.....clicking on the photo really gives a nice blown up view of the property. It's really nice, I wouldn't mind living here. Why would they want to tear it down?

1:44 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

There maybe copy errors.

Green Sheet # 3051022
Presented by
WHEREAS, Department of Safety and Inspections has requested the 1 City Council to
2 hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking
3 and removal of a two story, wood frame dwelling located on property hereinafter referred to as
4 the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 594 SELBY AVENUE. This property is
5 legally described as follows, to wit:
9 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and
10 information obtained by Department of Safety and Inspections on or before April 2, 2007, the
11 following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Selby
12 Dale LLC, 505 Tanglewood Dr, Shoreview, MN 55126; Commerce Bank, 7650 Edinborough
13 Way, Suite #150, Edina, MN 55435; Summit-University Planning Council.
15 WHEREAS, Department of Safety and Inspections has served in accordance with the
16 provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to
17 Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated January 23, 2008; and
19 WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the
20 structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
22 WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair
23 or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by February 22, 2008; and
25 WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property
26 declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
28 WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Department of Safety
29 and Inspections requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative
30 Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
32 WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance
33 with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and
34 purpose of the public hearings; and
36 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul
37 City Council on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving
38 testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested
39 or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace,
health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community 40 by demolishing
41 and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The
42 demolition of the structure to be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council
43 Hearing; and
45 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, May
46 21, 2008 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing
47 Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore
49 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above
50 referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and
51 Order concerning the Subject Property at 594 SELBY AVENUE.
53 1. That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
54 Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
56 2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed
57 five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
59 3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code
60 violations at the Subject Property.
62 4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known
63 responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the
64 building(s).
66 5. That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected.
68 6. That Department of Safety and Inspections has posted a placard on the Subject
69 Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
71 7. That this building has been routinely monitored by Department of Safety and
72 Inspections, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings.
74 8. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this
75 resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
79 The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
81 1. The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property
82 safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its
83 blighting influence on the community by demolishing and removing the structure in
84 accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition
and removal of the structure must be completed within fifteen (15) days 85 after the date of
86 the Council Hearing.
88 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time Department of
89 Safety and Inspections is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to
90 demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the
91 Subject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative
92 Code.
94 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all
95 personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal
96 shall be removed from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time
97 period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned
98 and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law.
100 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested
101 parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
Yeas Nays Absent
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
Approved by Mayor: Date
Requested by Department of:
Safety and Inspections
Code Enforcement / Vacant Buildings
Form Approved by City Attorney
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council

2:50 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

1:44, thank you.. I should have stated this under the title post.

2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clear as a bell! The city says it is blighting the area. Who thinks it is? Personally I think it is a nice looking house. What kind of a city goes around tearing down their tax base when they have such a budget mess on their hands? If this is representitive of others being torn down, this seems either irresponsible or agenda driven. Which is it Chuck?

3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, state the facts as you know them please because apparently nobody else is entitled.

The owners of this property have a multi-million dollar project being proposed for that very corner. Knowing this, it seems like a business deal. Not a slight by the city as Bob and some of you less literate participants have portrayed.

Good or Bad, the owners were removing this house anyway. $400,000 house being replaced by 50 million dollar plus condo/rental/retail units.

So, the city is losing nothing but, gaining almost 100 times the tax base if the development goes through. The citizens get to say good bye to blighted property for an attractive value adding property (which means their homes values increase too), and more taxes to cover the RICO fight- the city is winning by the way.

The owners of the property are a lucrative for profit limited liability company- not some poor landlord just trying to make ends meet.

So, what's everyone's point again? You gonna contradict yourself and say the owner can't do what he wants with his own property?


5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Use your influence with Dave Thune to have him try to save this important historic property.

5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets see now....a multi million dollar project going on and the city is saying the place is blighted when it's not. I'll bet there's some government money going into this and they have to say it's blighted to use it. This sounds like fraud to me. Who'd be suprised by that in this city?

6:18 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric, you have some influence, set us all straight and invite someone from Selby-Dale LLC to comment on this for us. After all we are on a truth seeking mission.

I think all of us would like to know the truth about this property one way or the other.

7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this home is a blight on the neighborhood they're going to demolish 65% of the homes in the city.

Mike Smith

7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd expect an open process involving a proposal to remove a historic house and I don't expect that would be easy. Using code removal appears disingenuous to me.

This open process is only fair to the people, who by their efforts have created the potential for this moneymaking opportunity, and fair to other developers.

It is important for the trust and integrity of the city, and feedback and compromises (if it goes through at all) are important.

7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trust and integrity of the city? HA...who you trying to fool? There is none!

7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Selby/Dale has a tremendous amount of symbolism - it symbolized extreme inner city despair during the 1960's and 1970's known throughout the country. It now symbolized the changes.

This house along with the other structures defined the corner. This redevelopment changes the nature of the corner and this should be handled with proper discussion not a back door removal of the house through inspections.

10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You sound like another person who comes into the community and decided what gives it character and is appealing therefore sacred. All the while the people who live there would like to see changes and jobs come in.


11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Why dont you let the people have an open process and consider all the facts. I don't pretend to know the answers, but I don't judge for them. Arbitrarily changing the character of Selby/Dale might have major implications, including perceptions.

12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An open process? The official open process is through the district council. Has that happened?

I don't have enough info to get into this aspect of the conversation with you. FOr all I know I may end up being on your side. My point was to debunk the talk about losing investments in the city and to chow other reasons for vacant housing and not just slumlords being targeted.


12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

uhhh, just to let everyone know, selby dale purchased the adjacent property in feb of 02 for 575,000 and the subject property in august of 2005 for 400,000. Total acquisition price is 975,000. the highest and best use of the total ownership is to raze the home and redevelop the site to a more intense use. This is not the case of someone being strong-armed out of their home. In fact, selby dale, paid way over market value for this home at 46/SF of land value. This is how private redevelopment in the city happens. It is called "revitalization". Watch out for the black helicopters

8:29 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home