Custom Search

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

New Nuscience Laws

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

48 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

There is copy errors

Minnesota Session Laws
2008, Regular Session
This document represents the act as presented to the governor. The
version passed by the legislature is the final engrossment. It does
not represent the official 2008 session law, which will be available here summer 2008.

CHAPTER 218--S.F.No. 2399
An act relating to public nuisances; making changes to public nuisance law
affecting evidentiary thresholds and numbers of triggering incidents required for specific offenses;amending Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 617.81,
subdivision

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 617.81, subdivision 2, is amended to
read:
Subd. 2. Acts constituting a nuisance. (a) For purposes of sections 617.80 to
617.87, a public nuisance exists (i) upon proof of one or more separate behavioral incidents described in clause (1), (5), or
(8), or (ii) upon proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents of one or more of the following described in clause (2), (3), (4),
(§1
(7). or (9), committed within the previous 12 months within the building:
(1) prostitution or prostitution-related activity committed within the building;
(2) gambling or gambling-related activity committed within the building;
(3) maintaining a public nuisance in violation of section 609.74, clause (I) or (3);
(4) permitting a public nuisance in violation of section 609.745;
(5) unlawful sale, possession, storage, delivery, giving, manufacture, cultivation, or
use of controlled substances committed within the building;
(6) unlicensed sales of alcoholic beverages committed within the building in
violation of section 340A.401;
(7) unlawful sales or gifts ofa1coholic beverages by an unlicensed person committed
within the building in violation of section 340A.503, subdivision 2, clause (1);
(8) unlawful use or possession of a firearm in violation of section 609.66,
subdivision
+a, 609.67, Of 624.713 dangerous weapon as defined in section 609.02. subdivision
Ii,
committed within the building; or
(9) violation by a commercial enterprise of local or state business licensing
regulations, ordinances, or statutes prohibiting the maintenance of a public nuisance
as defined in section 609.74 or the control of a public nuisance as defined in section
609.745.
(b) If the building contains more than one rental unit, two or more behavioral
incidents must consist of conduct:
(1) anywhere in the building by the same tenant or lessee, or persons acting in
conjunction with or under the control of the same tenant or lessee;
(2) by any persons within the same rental unit while occupied by the same tenant or
lessee or within two or more rental units while occupied by the same tenant or lessee
or
(3) by the owner of the building or persons acting in conjunction with or under
the control of the owner.
(c) Proof of a nuisance exists if each of the elements of the conduct constituting the
nuisance is established by clear and convincing evidence.
Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 1 applies to crimes committed on or after August 1,2008

609.02 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision I. Crime. "Crime" means conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which
the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine.
Subd. 2. Felony. "Felony" means a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year may be imposed.
Subd. 2a.[Repealed, 1999 c 194 s 11]
Subd. 3. Misdemeanor. "Misdemeanor" means a crime for which a sentence of
not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both, may be imposed.
Subd. 4. Gross misdemeanor. "Gross misdemeanor" means any crime which is not a felony
or misdemeanor. The maximum fine which may be imposed for a gross misdemeanor
is $3,000.
Subd. 4a. Petty misdemeanor. "Petty misdemeanor" means a petty offense which
IS
prohibited by statute, which does not constitute a crime and for which a sentence of a
fine of not more than $)00 may be imposed.
Subd. 5. Conviction. "Conviction" means any of the following accepted and recorded by the court:
(1) A plea of guilty; or
(2) A verdict of guilty by a jury or a finding of guilty by the court.
Subd. 6. Dangerous weapon. "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether
loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or
great bodily harm, any combustible or flammable liquid or other device or instrumentality that, in
the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great
bodily harm,or any fire that is used to produce death or great bodily harm.
As used in this subdivision, "flammable liquid" means any liquid having a flash point below 100 degrees Fahrenheit and having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 pounds per square inch
(absolute) at 100 degrees Fahrenheit but does not include intoxicating liquor as defined in section
340A.101. As used in this subdivision, "combustible liquid" is a liquid having a flash
point at or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

9:47 AM  
Anonymous MS 617 said...

Chapter 617 Table of Contents Abortion; Obscenity; Houses of Ill-Fame

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/statute/statute_chapter.php?year=2007&start=609&close=624&history=&border=0

10:57 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Put more landlord out business.

No landlords in the state of mn.

11:53 AM  
Anonymous Ericksons'Rulings StopWar v. City St.Paul said...

Federal Judge Joan Erickson's ruling's affect more than the landLords v. City of St. Paul
Your Rights to Petition are also affected.
Read the Briefs
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Order.pdf?location_refer=Homepage:highlightModules:2

12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob - Leslie - what this tells you is how off of the mark you guys are. The City, the State, the public is fed up with the crap. You guys like to blame it on the Saint Paul City Council, but the truth is that everyone has had it with badly managed properties.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem, Chuck, is not only landlords or property management - although the landlords have brought the lawsuits. The problem is the abuse of power on the citizens by the city leadership.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:56 - You guys don't get it. It is the Citizens demanding that their government crack down on the bad property managers! Not only in Saint Paul but around the state. The public is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. They are done with your kind that live off of the misfortune of others and destroy property values in the neighborhood. The Citizens have had it with you and want their government to take action.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke,

You're full of shit! They do it to anyone they fell like it on a whim. Every property has code violations.

3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:27 take your medications and then go back up to the top of this WEB page and read what the nice man has posted. It spells out new nuisance laws, which basicly makes the point that the public wants action on these properties. So, once your drugs take effect and you can reason better will let you have a cookie.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

4:29 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Chuck,

I going to properties everyday and pick up their trash. And report their drug dealings , I kick them out.

Then I have no one to pay the mortgage and other bills.

I am the one being punished for the tenant bad behavior.
I can tell any thing because of the laws and go there to many times. they call leagl aid.

So, chuck you are full shit.
I do the crime I do the time.
If the tenants do the crime. I do the time.

Now you tell how that is fair.

And Now the City has not make has not stop code enforement.

Accord to Morris VS. Sax. Tere still tell people how to fix thier buildings.

When People of St.Paul find out how f---k the city. How much money
are spend to pay people.

You see How fast Yours friends will be out of office.

5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The public is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. They are done with your kind"

Oh yes they are Chuck. Matter a fact they're going to take it for quite a bit longer.....and pay for it to boot.

11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les

I little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Morris v Sax concerns a City developng a seperate code for rental property than for non-rental. The City hasn't done that. In fact I have at least three times asked here for someone to name one thing that the City has in the code that isn't a part of the state building code.

There is little or no connection between Morris v Sax and the issues people raise about code enforsement. What you all object to is the enforsement of the state building code.

Where you have an out in Morris v Sax is if the City were to write up an occupied building built before 1950 for not having enough electrical outlets. Then you would have an issue in Morris, because the court said that the City can only enforce the code that existed when the home was built.

Where that isn't going to help you is once the building goes vacant. Because once it is vacant all bets are off. Once it is vacant its not a house its a pile of sticks and the City can require the pile of sticks being brought up to code before they let anyone live in it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:06 AM  
Anonymous bill cullen said...

Chuck,

I am not sure, but I don’t think state building code gives a municipality a right to remove a building from “legal, non-conforming status” unless the building is out of compliance for 12 months or more. Did I miss another exception in the state code?

St. Paul requires code compliance immediately after registered vacant…

Bill Cullen.

12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Leech is a St.Paul City Attorney, and he is also a
Minnesota State Legislature.
Is he doing as Kathy Lantry is telling him?
But he is a lawyer and he is double dipping.
That is one more lawyer in government.

7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke
You should have ran for U.S. Senate against Al Franken, both of you are a laugh.

7:08 AM  
Anonymous MS617-Repealed/Inactive said...

Chuck Repke your legal research of Nuisance Laws, does not address the Repealed or Inactive

The city is charging/demo on repealed Laws????

No wonder Marcia Moermond is on vacation??? myra vang paralegal is taking over?
Inactive or repealed MS617https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP&year=2007&section=617

7:43 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck, the state of mn building codeis ICC book.and R110.1
No building or structure shall beused or occupied, and no changwe in the existing occupancy classificationof a building or structureor portion thereof shall be made until thr building officals has issued a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violations of the provisions of this codeor of other ordinances of the jurisdication. Certificates presuming to give authority to vioate or cancel the provisions of the code or other orddinances of the jurisidiction shall not be valid.
R110.2 Change in used Changes in the character or use of an existing struture shall not be made except as specified in Sec. 3405 And 3406 of the international Building Codes.

I guest mean Yhat the city has to issure a c and o . Then can order change as long it complie with the internations building code.

So the City is doing everything wrong.

9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of our brilliant legal scholars has pointed out something that never occured to me. Way to go Les. I can now see how the city has been doing everything as backwards. Looks like Les is not as dumb as you thought huh Eric?

10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

:56 - You guys don't get it. It is the Citizens demanding that their government crack down on the bad property managers! Not only in Saint Paul but around the state. The public is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. They are done with your kind that live off of the misfortune of others and destroy property values in the neighborhood. The Citizens have had it with you and want their government to take action.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke



Ciani say,"Chuck if landlords are distrying the neighborhood property values wouldn't that bring down theirs?Not smart business.

I don't think anybody has a problem with property upkeep.Its how they enact the coode against you.Using tenant behavior to make you paint your soffits is not ok.Writting you up 2-3 times a month when they could have done it all at once is a nuisance by itself.The city tried and did put landlords out of business illegally.PERIOD!

Tim Ciani

12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Bill you read the state code correct.12 months.I've seen cases where a building went vacant for 2 days and needed a full code compliance.Chuck if were giving the city this power its very dangerous.I also heard fromthe grapevine that inspectors and even Dawkins didn't know when a property can be declared vacant and a code compliance issued.Vagueness is almost as dangerous Chuck.Call down to the inspections department or find me the definition of vacant.




Tim Ciani

12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can tell you the definition of vacant in a heartbeat.....it's the space between Eric and Chuck ears.

1:34 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

Check this out.

R102.4
Referced codes and standards. The codes and standards refernced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such
reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.
I guest mean that city chapter 35 and 40. Mean nothing.

What do you think?? Chuck??

1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill and Les

It depends what you mean by:
“legal, non-conforming status”

It is your suggestion that the status as an "occupied dwelling" would continue 12 months after the building was abandoned. That would be a new and interesting determination of what the law means by "status."

Normally what most have determined to be “legal, non-conforming status” is things like a commercial use in a building that has been down zoned to residential or an industrial use in a commercial zone. I don't think anyone has tried to determine that something that is abondoned and thereby placed on the vacant building list in Saint Paul isn't actually abandoned until it has been vacant one year.

Grandfathering of a "use" has always been considered as long as the use was continual. And, it continues for one year for you to be able to sell the property for that use. The issue that the City has with vacant is once the water and power is off it is no longer habitable and not an occupied dwelling. They would argue from a public health standard that "occupied dwelling or habitable" was not a land use status.

So, I guess we have one case to be tried. My guts say you have a loser, but that would be a new way to look at the world.

Les - other than what we just discussed above nobody has given me anything in those chapters that is not in state building code.

Nice to see a real debate about real ways to view the real world with you two!

Tim on the other hand you just continue to be full of it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:08 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

Its look like code enforement officser are HOOk for damages.
R104.8 The building official, member of the board of appeals or emolyee charge with the enforement of this code. While acting for the jurisdiction in good faith and without malice in the discharge of the duties require by this code orther pertinent law or ordinance, shall not thereby be renderedliable personally and is here relieved from personal liability
for any damages accuring to persons or propertyas as a result of any act or by reason of an actor omission in the discharg of official duties. Any suit instituted against an officer or employees because of an act performed by that officer or employee in the lawful discharge of duties under the provision of this code shall be defended by legal respresentative of the jurisdiction untilthe fianl termination of the procreedings. The building offical or any subordinate shall not be liable for cost in any action,suit or proceeding that is instituted in persuance of the provisions of this code.

Well, Chcuk why is the city of st.Paul keep delaying the lawsuits.
They did not used the state codes.
So, they will have to pay for defending themself.

In the email show MALIC.

4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've pointed this out to you several times Chuck and you refuse to answer.....where does the State code say the city can require code compliances right after they condemn a property. It doesn't and they did and you don't want to talk about it.

5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

google has this really cool toolbar. it lets you do a search without opening a new window, an effective popup blocker, and it also HAS A SPELL CHECKER!!!!

moronic viewpoints (on both sides, btw...) look even more moronic when they are littered with typos and/or spelling errors...

6:17 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:31 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you so much Nancy for correcting your spelling mistake. WHile spelling has never bothered me a lot, it's correctness does make it much easier for the more "Anal" readership to follow along.

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:36 where in the first amendment does it spell out the rights in the fifth amendment? Your question makes the same amount of sense.

The City's position would be that its basic police powers that is given to any municiple government will allow it to abate blight. It isn't enforcing that state building code when it declares that a building is a threat to the health and safety because it is no longer habitable.

So, when the building no longer has power or water it is not habitable and the owner is given notice that the building is being placed on the vacant building list. The owner of the property has a very simple way to avoid being placed on the list...DON'T ABANDON THE BUILDING!!! Keep the water on! Pay your power bills!

This isn't rocket sceince. Once the building has been abandoned and it has become a risk to public health and safety it is the City's position that it isn't a house. It is a pile of sticks and if you want to turn your pile of sticks into a house then you will need to comply with the state building code.

And Les - there is no malice the City's intent is to remove blight and to maintain the public health and safety. Those are basic duties of the government.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It becomes malice when they lie and fabricate city reocrds to do it Chuck.

6:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city is highly punitive in their intent.

8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck the state code doesn't say a building is vacant if the water is shut off.



tim Ciani

9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said-

So, when the building no longer has power or water it is not habitable and the owner is given notice that the building is being placed on the vacant building list. The owner of the property has a very simple way to avoid being placed on the list...DON'T ABANDON THE BUILDING!!! Keep the water on! Pay your power bills!

* However, if your name is Mike Kalis and, or, you work for the city of Saint Paul they will asses the utility bill to your taxes. And you would avoid the hassles from the city.

10:17 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck ,

The state code not state if the power is off, and or water is shut off. The state only structures issues. The city made the stuff up.

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

malice is define as a disposition to infict injury. a hostile act

12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everybody is a dime store attorney now.

The legal definition of malice is intent. Was there intent to commit whatever act that's being accused?
Manslaughter is changed to murder if there is obvious malice in the act that led to the death.

Practicing law without a license is a crime people.

Eric

4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim and 12:33 Where in the First amendment does it spell out your Fifth amendment rights?

You must not have those rights not to testify against yourself because it isn't in the First Amendment!

Your comments make the same amount of sense. A City's determination of what constitutes an abandoned building and a public health hazard has nothing to do with the building code. It comes under the basic municiple land use powers granted to any municipality by their charter from the state.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

5:04 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

eric,

That was define by webster handy college dictionary.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,
I think are wrong.
but i will let have one.

Tell me on what book or references
tool. That states that.

5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leslie, why do you keep trying to bullshit me?

Webster has been bought out by Merriam, its now Merriam Webster and that definition verbatim is:

malice


Main Entry:
mal·ice Listen to the pronunciation of malice
Pronunciation:
\ˈma-ləs\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date:
14th century

1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another

2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

---------------
Now, the big kids would look it up in a legal form. The legal definition and explanation is:

malice

n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being.
Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice.
Malice is an element in first degree murder.

In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.
----------

Eric

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

eric,

What do u mean bulshit. its copyright in 1972. I looking for blac law dictionary right now for the law defintion.

If you read the emails and other
statements from the ricomen case.

They have show mailce. Much more,

You the one to doing the bullshiting. Because you are screw up.

I will let facts speaks for it self. Not someone that thinks that he know it better than someone else.

You can defend the city on you want but they will lose.

I was told that someone is file injunction against the city . Because they fail to follow the state law . Morris vs Sax.

When that happending the city will have more suits

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Chuck,

Effects of 2008 Legislation – The Minnesota State Building Code
The 2008 Minnesota Legislature passed legislation that will have a significant positive impact on construction in
Minnesota. In part, this legislation, carried by the Builders Association of Minnesota, has the following effects.
The statewide construction standard is now the Minnesota State Building Code
The Minnesota State Building Code has now been established as the minimum construction standard throughout
all of Minnesota including all cities, townships, and counties. Although it is not enforceable by municipalities
unless it is adopted by local ordinance, this law creates a level playing field for the construction industry by
establishing the Minnesota State Building Code as the standard for the construction of all buildings in the state.
Following are excerpts of the new law that will be contained in Minnesota Statute 16B.62 Subdivisions 1a and 1b:
Application (1a)
The state building code is the standard that applies statewide for the construction, reconstruction, alteration,
and repair of buildings and other structures of the type governed by the code. The State Building Code
supersedes the building code of any municipality. The State Building Code does not apply to agricultural
buildings except with respect to state inspections required or rulemaking authorized by sections 103F.141;
216C.19, subdivision 9; and 326.244.”
Municipal enforcement (1b)
(a) If, as of January 1, 2008, a municipality has in effect an ordinance adopting the State Building Code, that
municipality must continue to administer and enforce the State Building Code within its jurisdiction. The
municipality is prohibited from repealing its ordinance adopting the State Building Code. This paragraph does
not apply to municipalities with a population of less than 2,500 according to the last federal census that are
located outside of a metropolitan county, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 4.
(b) If a municipality is not required by paragraph (a) to administer and enforce the State Building Code, the
municipality may choose to administer and enforce the State Building Code within its jurisdiction by adopting
the code by ordinance [appointing a certified building official, and establishing a fee schedule]
Some existing state building code provisions remain where enforcement is still mandatory throughout the state.
These include electrical, elevator, accessibility, high pressure piping, boiler, manufactured home, bleacher safety
and commercial plumbing. With the exception of accessibility, these codes are enforced by the Construction
Codes and Licensing Division in areas of the state where the code has not been adopted locally. The responsibility
for enforcement of bleacher codes and the Accessibility Code rests with a statutory or home rule charter city or a
county where there is no local ordinance in effect adopting the State Building Code.

5:11 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

148
MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 1301
BUILDING OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION AND EDUCATION
BUILDING OFFICIAL
CERTIFICATION
1301.0100 PURPOSE.
The purpose of parts 1301.0100 to
1301.0600 is to establish procedures for
certification of building officials and
prerequisites for persons applying to be
certified.
Statutory Authority: MS s 16B.61
History: 15 SR 74
1301.0200 FORMS OF CERTIFICATION.
Subpart 1. Certified building official.
This classification is granted to a person who
has met the “certified building official”
prerequisites of part 1301.0300 and
successfully passed the written examination
prepared by the state. A person with this
certification may serve as the building official
for any municipality.
Subp. 1a. Repealed, 27 SR 1474
Subp. 2. Repealed, 19 SR 75
Subp. 3. Class I certification. A Class I
certification is identified as “Class I” on the
certification card. This classification was
granted to a person who met a prerequisite
and passed a written examination. This
classification restricts the holder to
administering the code only for one- and twofamily
dwellings and their accessory
structures. As of July 1, 1990, this class is no
longer issued. Persons with this classification
may continue to hold this classification by
submitting evidence of fulfilling the
appropriate continuing education program
established by part 1301.0900, item A.
Subp. 4. Repealed, 19 SR 75
Subp. 5. Certified building officiallimited.
This certification is identified as
“certified building official-limited” on the
certification card. This classification is
granted to a person who has met the “certified
building official-limited” prerequisites of part
1301.0300 and successfully passed the written
examination prepared by the state. A person
with this classification may perform code
administration for one- and two-family
dwellings, their accessory structures, and
“exempt classes of buildings” as provided in
part 1800.5000 of the Board of Architecture,
Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape
Architecture, and Geoscience rules, as well as
“facilities for persons with physical
disabilities” provisions in chapter 1341 of the
Minnesota State Building Code. Code
administration for all other buildings must be
performed by a certified building official as
defined in subpart 1. However, the certified
building official-limited may conduct
inspections at the direction of a certified
building official or the state building official.
Subp. 6. Accessibility specialist. This
certification is identified as “accessibility
specialist” on the certification card. This
certification is granted to a person who has
met the “accessibility specialist” prerequisites
of part 1301.0300 and successfully passed the
written examination prepared by the state. A
person with this classification is limited to the
administration of those provisions of the
Minnesota State Building Code which provide
access for persons with disabilities.
Use of this certification is restricted to
municipalities that according to Minnesota
Statutes, sections 16B.72 and 16B.73, do not
administer the code. If a municipality adopts
the Minnesota State Building Code, the
responsibilities for code administration and
enforcement are under the authority of the
certified building official or the certified
building official-limited.

5:20 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Chuck I think that the city of St,Paul has not adpation of the state. So, the code enforement offices are a fake. And the city can just thw laws that they what to follow.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of you need to today sunday paper and see want lanry said about the power being shute off.

7:25 AM  
Anonymous anon2 said...

leslie says...
I going to properties everyday and pick up their trash. And report their drug dealings , I kick them out.

Then I have no one to pay the mortgage and other bills.

I am the one being punished for the tenant bad behavior.
I can tell any thing because of the laws and go there to many times. they call leagl aid.

So, chuck you are full shit.
I do the crime I do the time.
If the tenants do the crime. I do the time.

Now you tell how that is fair.
---------
if you arent screening your tenants properly, how is that fair to anyone else? definitely sounds like a screening problem.

12:40 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home