Custom Search

Friday, May 23, 2008

Saint Paul/ Rough day at the city council meetings.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

57 Comments:

Anonymous Video here said...

Homeowner threatens City Council with John Shoemaker and they call his bluff! According to someone who was there, as soon as the Shoemaker name was mentioned, one of the Councilmen jumped out of his chair and rushed to the City Attorney and started whispering in his ear. The Fire Department says they made the building a Cat 1 so the guy could move back in as a homeowner and when they found out he wasn't going to live there they changed it to a Cat 2 Vacant Building. Councilman Harris tells Marcia Moermond to turn the guy in to Ramsey County for "tax fraud" and she says she will.

CLICK ABOVE

9:40 AM  
Anonymous #63 on the agenda said...

click above

9:47 AM  
Anonymous #71 on the agenda said...

Our Nancy hands Kathy Lantry her LUNCH!

9:48 AM  
Anonymous #59 said...

Also appearing for us in hearing #59 is Leslie Lucht who proceeds to chew out the City Council over more lawsuits. There is a very "telling" statement made by the City Attorney is this hearing. City Attorney Hendrickson says that the City of St. Paul has every right to enforce items that are not in the State Building Code!

9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy,

Why dont you just clean up the trash and dog shit ?
You are using this city council hearing as a platform to resolve issues not directly related to the abatement !
Where is your power of attorney ?
If you don't own the property or have a LEGAL power of attorney,you have no legal standing to argue against the abatement.

10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city representatives sure look smart-mouthed. It'll be interesting how they look in jail stripes.

Good job citizens!

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:51
That's because charter cities can have additional ordinances that are not addressed in the state code.

Eric

12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's because charter cities can have additional ordinances that are not addressed in the state code."

I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one Eric......Morris is a charter city also and the Supreme Court says they cannot go above what the State code says. Sorry buddy.....you lose again!

1:42 PM  
Blogger Swiftee said...

@9:48,

If Nancy handed Lantry her lunch, she got an abatement order in return!

If you are going to argue legalities, you have to have a valid legal opinion to argue from.

Nancy is not stupid, but neither is she a legal scholar. The power of attorney is an instrument that allows a second party to make legally binding decisions for a first party. It's not a liscense to practise law.

I hope you people take this as the sincere advice it's intended to be.

I'd love nothing more than to see this city council handed it's ass. But I have to truthfully say that so far you haven't presented yourselves very rationally.

2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Swiftee, shit in the park and don't even tell us how to clean it up! I see how you are!

2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a trap and Lantry stepped into it.

2:50 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

Just a reminder, this topic and statements were requested. I take request for postings, so if you have a topic you think may interest readers here please send it to me.

Personally, I don't feel the Morris -vs- Sax case has much of an effect on the RICO cases standing. But then again I am not an attorney and struggle through several readings of a court order to get an understanding. Maybe I don't have it right, maybe someone out there will take the time to draw similarities and what effects this has on current code enforcement.

I think some of what you call irrational behavior Swiftee can be directly associated with citizens feeling powerless against what many believe is a corrupted system.

2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:42
Morris-vs-Sax is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Judge Klaphake opined that the Minnesota State Building Code, Minn. Stat. §§ 16B.59-.76 (2004) did NOT preempt the city’s rental housing code, found at Morris City Code, Section 4.32 (1997), because the state building code preempts matters of CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING, RESTORATION, or alteration in residential housing, but does NOT (I repeat---NOT) preempt local authorities from CREATING and ENFORCING standards of habitability as they relate to the BUSINESS of rental housing.

What part of that don't you understand? I know what part of it you don't like.


Eric

3:02 PM  
Blogger Swiftee said...

I hear what you're saying Bob. But in my humble opinion frustration is better vented with a few choice words.

Standing in front of an elected body (that they are idiots not-with-standing), or a court for that matter and rambling on about your rights, or your opinions as to the law doesn't help the cause.

Nancy got to have her say, and the council was obliged to listen, but in the end they blew her off.

I'm not trying to be offensive (you should be able to tell the difference by now), I've said it before; I'm on your side. But that's the way I saw it.

If you want to win, hire a lawyer, or better yet go to law school and get a license to practise. Then start swatting moonbats.

ps For those of you that may not be able to detect the difference between well meaning opinion and deliberate disrespect, I offer the following example of the latter:

Fuck you Chuck, and that goes double for your fat, greasy, buck-toothed butt boy, Bucky.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, what is it that time of the month? Little harsh on Swiftee weren't you? lol....

Come on Honey prove it to us you won the cases you are talking about!

3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm hoping Nancy's saga will be David v. Goliath all over again.

Hellgen even looks like a modern-day Goliath.

3:44 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:18 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone care to comment if they feel George Latimer was the last very good mayor of St.Paul ?

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric

I thought the Supreme Court was very clear in spelling out that the State Building Code does premmpt the local BS no matter what they call it.

I think you better go back to reading it again Eric. This time try it with an open mind.

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This is EXACTLY what the RICO guys are arguing, that the City tried to use building code enforcement to address matters that were not covered by the building code."

And those specific matters were behavior and the wishes of racist neighbors Nancy and every city that has ever been sued for mxing the behavior issue with codes has lost big time to the palintiffs bringing those suits. I suspect St. Paul will be no different.

12:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Item 59 in Thune's ward. The guys says, "I just need 2-3 weeks to get the rest of it done." Staff had recomended 15 days, the owner wanted 3 weeks, Thune moved 30 days.

So, like I have said for all of the bitching you do on him, I still haven't seen one in his ward where if the owner asked for a reasonable period of time to get the work done Thune hasn't given the guy more time.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:29 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah Repke and besides, you could tell Thune didn't really want to help the guy. With his back to the wall, he had to, otherwise he'd a sliced em up like a Xmas turkey.

2:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope some of your posters are not Attorneys. The intent of the Court is very clear and I believe it will reach all the way to St. Paul.

4:17 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I was wondering Chuck why there was such a big effort to demolish the VFW on Stewart?

The owner had to fight tooth and nail and wasted thousands of dollars on legal fees to fend off the city's bulldozer. Property owners have better things to spend their hard earned money on, like building materials.

Today, finally after long battles with the city, the VFW is nearing completion. And folks, the structure outshines EVERY building in that entire neighborhood.

Chuck, if you and Dave had, had your way, this BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC structure would be gone forever.

Now, I think according to the world you live in, maybe you and Dave should lobby to tear down the homes around this one and up scale the new development so they fit in the neighborhood with the VFW.

That new town home structure on the block the VFW sits on, looks like a tar paper shack sitting on the same block with this building.

7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Council President Lantry showed the problem. When the council was challenged on Sax v Morris, Lantry turned to legal council and asked for advice. Lantry received the answer and proceeded as the attorney recommended. The anger out here towards the council seems misdirected. They are doing what council recommends.

I am surprised the city attorney did not recommend a new policy -- or at least caution. Either we are reading the lawsuit wrong or the city attorney is.

Guess a few more court cases will be required to settle this out. Sigh.

Bill Cullen.

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're not reading the lawsuit wrong Bill.....the city Attorney is. He (they) truely believe they can enforce anything they want and that's why they have the lawsuit mess they have now. They're living in denial, and it appears that things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get any better.

Nancy has an interesting theroy about their entire vacant building ordinance being illegal. If it is, they owe a lot of refunds to people who have paid those fees. There's your conspiracy, racketeering and profit all rolled into one Chuck!

1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the "flood gates" are about to open! We'll see how much the city likes to fight when they are overwehlmed with lawsuits and people demanding refunds on vacant building fees and money spent on illegal code complainces.

3:09 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

If anybody thinks that the city won't have to pay back fees, just ask the city of Minneapolis when the RED LIGHT issue found illegal by the Supreme Court and the city had to reimburse those that paid the tickets.




Jeff Matiatos

3:41 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Nancy, Is the next thing you are going to tell us is that you want the to take away the city "charter" from St. Paul? You are going a little over board here I think.

6:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy,
You seem to skip the last part of the opinion:
"...but does NOT preempt local authorities from CREATING and ENFORCING standards of habitability as they relate to the BUSINESS of rental housing."

I'm right as you haven't won shit on that argument you're trying to sell.

Qui Tam?
Do you just pull definitions out of the legal dictionary and apply them at will?

I'm very familiar with it and am with two of the five attorneys in the entire state who are experts on it. You, I'm sure are going to consider yourself number six.

Swiftee is giving you sage advice, get a real fuckin' lawyer. You remind me of this guy

Reading does not equal comprehension and it certainly doesn't equal mastery of the subject.

Eric

9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think St Paul has went far beyond creating and enforcing standards of habitability with respect to the rental business Eric. St. Paul can call it anything they want to but when they go above what the State Building Code says, they have crossed the line.

9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob - I don't know anything about it, but can't believe Thune wouldn't have wanted to demo it.

Got an address, I'll look it up Tuesday.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck

10:02 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy the first question is your problem with how you look at the actions of the court...

"Like the "ordinance" that St. Paul has that they can search ANY building in the city WITHOUT warrant if they "think" it is in the public interest."

- snip -


what the courts intent is, is what it says. The court wasn't determing if there was life on other planets, the court was determing if the City of Morris was creating additional BUILDING CODES... and the answer was yes. It created additional building codes by creating ordinances that spelled out structural requirements for rental properties.

The court was clear that it wasn't trying to stop municiple government from inspecting properties or in acting in its responsibility to enforce the state code.

Municiple government is frequently responsible for enforsing state law. Following your logic the cops couldn't arrest anyone for murder because the state writes the laws concerning murder and restricts cities from doing so.

To say that the cities can no longer enforce the state code because the court said again that cities can not create additional building codes makes as much sense.

The Morris ruling has no impact on anything that was in front of the council Wednesday that we saw here.

Site me something in Chapter 34 that isn't state law that the city is enforcing. All chapter 34 does is explain how the City will enforce the state law.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have to understand where Eric and Chuck are coming from Nancy. They like these activist Judges and the more people that get screwed over the better as long as their little part of the world remains untouched and they get to keep doing what they're doing. To them the ends justify the means.....as long as Government is doing it, there can be no wrong becuase Government always knows what's best for people. Right boys?

12:33 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Site me something in Chapter 34 that isn't state law that the city is enforcing. All chapter 34 does is explain how the City will enforce the state law"

The city of St. Paul is trying to remove the "non conforming use" occupancy through the code compliance requirments Chuck. What they are doing has always been against the law. Removing the "grandfathering" clause is going above what the State of Minnesota Statutes allow. What is it you don't get about that? They can make you fix broken windows, toilets, locks and tell you to keep your house painted, etc, but they cannot tell you to start bringing plumbing, heating and electric up to todays building code standards, nor can they go after property owners because of behavior issues of tenants and they have been doing that for 15 yeaqrs at least! Gonna be some new rules in town Chuck. Now the city is going to start following the law just like they expect everyone else to do.

By the way, the citys vacant buidling ordinance is out the window....along with all the fees they have collected ofr it over the years. I expect they'll now be getting sued for refunds of those fees. Now they'll have no money to use to monitor the problem they created, but they'll be stuck with the enforcement anyways. I would expect refunds of all the code compliance fees also in addition to all the bonds the city stole from people because they were a week late in finishing the repairs.

12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck and his cronies like to operate under the "rule of law," not the meaning of the law!

12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy,
You are just too hard on Chuck. Have mercy on him, because his empire is going down the drain.

8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man what part of habitable is it that you don't get?

When there is no water and/or no electric you can not live there and your non-conforming house becomes a health hazard. You don't want the building demo'ed don't let it go vacant.

The state's year of grandfathering "might" protect a building that wasn't up to code and had power and water under the non-conforming but the ball game is over once you no longer have a habitable building.

As Eric said you skip this part of the court ruling...

"...but does NOT preempt local authorities from CREATING and ENFORCING standards of habitability as they relate to the BUSINESS of rental housing."

Sorry folks you can pretend you have won something you haven't and you can make speaches at City Hall, but nothing has changed.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Standards of habitability have nothing to do with the city requiring illegal code compliances Chuck. What is it that you don't get about that?

10:24 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Chuck,
under the International Residential code. For One-and two-
Family dwellings. This is the
code book uses by general contractor, and any persons working on the house. For New construction and repairs.


Which the state of Minn. adopted in 1974.

Its has all items that require a permit.

Things that do not cover is the following. That do not require a permit. accord to the code book.
Building: 1. One story detached accessory Structures,Provided the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet. 2. Fences not over 6 feet . 3.retaining alss that are not over 4 feet in measure from the
bottom of the footing to the top the wall wall.

This is some of the items that city can tell you fix.

Without violation the stat codes.
Basic any items that require a permit. The city can not tell you fix. Unless the inspector for that a area are license for the that type of area. ie Building (framing, roofing), Electrical, pipefitter,Mechanical, and plumbing.


The code enforcement officer are not license in any of the areas.

So, they are in violation of the state codes them self. And State Law. Under Morris VS. Sax ruling.

To deem that the house is unsafe they to condut Many test by license persons. Not by just the word of a code officals.

4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

You seem to forget that this is not limited to business and rental, but residential housing as well.

4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK this tops them all...

"Basic any items that require a permit. The city can not tell you fix."

- snip -

Well, that is a perfect example of your folks logic. The City can not inspect the very things that it gives permits for AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do I even try to explain how insane you all sound. Of course the City has the ability to inspect the things that the City gives permits for.

IT IS THE CITY THAT ENFORCES THE STATE'S CODE!!!!

When you aply for a building permit you go to the City to get it... why would anyone ever think the City wouldn't then be the one who does the inspections.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You still haven't answered my queston Chuck. Why won't the city let the landlords repair their property when it comes to the expensive things like electric, plumbing and heating?

12:52 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

You have inspection done by someone in the trade.

When you pull a permit.

The code enforcement officals arer not in the trade.

The inspector for the permit do not tell to fix things. They look
at the work you do. To make sure is it done to code. That what they do.

The code enforcewment officals have no knowlegd on the codes.

because they did not work in the trades before. Like the inspector
of the permits.

7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:52,

Mabe because your not a plumber or an electrician.

I will say this though, if your going to do your own electrical and plumbimg, it better not show and you better dam make sure you have good homeowners insurance.

7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les

IT IS THE CITY THAT DOES THE INSPECTION!!!

You get the building permit from the same level of government that does the code inspections. Bob Kesler is the head of the entire thing.

Help me this place is insane.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:04 PM  
Anonymous Lesli K. Lucht said...

chuck,

You just do not get it.

The building inspector are from the trade. They are license from the state.

The code enforcement officers are not. They trained by the city.
And they are not license by state.
and they are not in the trades before they become code enforcement offices. It is promotions for city employees only.

The states codes are differents then the city codes.

Get a life.

Say hi to dave t. for me

7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tin foil Less, pleanty of tin foil... keep it wrapped around your head nice and tight.

I'll say hi to Dave and all of the nice people for you...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:36 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. lucht said...

chuck.


pass tin foil

8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marcia Moermond, turn her in for just being a snitch.
Not to Ramsey County.
To all the homeless people that she help make homeless, now they live at Dorothy Day.
People DON"T LIKE SNITCHES.
Marcia look up SNITCHES, and see if that sounds like you?

7:43 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home