Custom Search

Friday, August 01, 2008

Saint Paul/ UPDATE- Nancy Lazaryan's battles with the city over housing

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

43 Comments:

Anonymous Attorney Patrick Tierney said...

Patrick T. Tierney
Attorney At Law

July 31, 2008

The Honorable Dale B. Lindman
Judge of District Court
1030 Ramsey County Courthouse
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102

Re: Nancy C. Lazaryan, et al. v. The City of St. Paul, et al.
Court File No.: 62-CV-07-1960
Our File No.: 13236-1

Dear Judge Lindman:

Evelyn Wallace submits this letter argument in support of her request that this Court order the City to remove the vacant building classification on this property because (1) the City’s regulation of this property as a registered vacant building is in conflict with the State Building Code and, therefore, impermissible under City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008) and (2) the City Code provisions that allow the City to register property as a vacant building, as applied by the City in this case, resulted in an impermissible taking of property without due process.

A. Background:

During May of 2007, Evelyn Wallace purchased a single family residence at 1033 Colne Street, in the City of Saint Paul. At the time she purchased that property, she had no actual or constructive knowledge that the City had previously registered the property as a vacant building.

On June 1, 2007, Evelyn Wallace’s granddaughter, Victoria Marchetti, began living in the home. On July 10, 2007, an enforcement officer for the City of Saint Paul informed Victoria Marchetti that the house was a “Registered Vacant Building” and directed her to vacate the property.

The State Building Code provides that a building official “… may order any building or portion of a building to be vacated if continued use is dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants. The order shall be in writing and state the reasons for the action.” Minn. Rules, 1300.0180, Unsafe Buildings or Structures.

The State Building Code further provides that if a municipality decides that property should be vacated, it must follow the statutory procedure set forth in Minn. Stat., §§463.15 to 463.26. Minn. Stat. §463.251 allows a city to secure a vacant or unoccupied building if the building “is deemed hazardous due to the fact that the building is open to trespass and has not been secured.” Minn. Stat. §463.17 requires that the municipality provide notice to the owner, mortgage holder and that the municipality record any Order with the County Recorder.

The Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 43, §43.02 provides a different definition of a vacant building. The City Code defines a vacant building as a building or portion of a building which is:

a. Unoccupied and unsecured;
b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means;
c. Unoccupied and a dangerous structure;
d. Unoccupied and condemned;
e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations;
f. Condemned and illegally occupied; or
g. Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred sixty-five (365) days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.

In this case, this property never met the requirements for a vacant building under the State Building Code. The property was never found to be “dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants.” The property is currently being legally occupied by Victoria Marchetti and does not now, nor has it ever, met the definition of a vacant building under the City Code.

On July 11, 2007 Evelyn Wallace appealed the enforcement officer’s order that attempted to impose a vacant building classification on her property, and that ordered her granddaughter to vacate the property. In her Application for Appeal, she noted that the February 15, 2007 Truth-in-Housing report on this property did not identify the property as a vacant building.

On July 24, 2007 a legislative hearing was conducted pursuant to Chapter 18, §18.01 of the Code. The legislative hearing officer considered the appeal to be an appeal of the original May 2006 order of the City classifying this house as a vacant building. The officer recommended that the City Council uphold enforcement officer’s order. The City Council accepted the recommendation of the hearing officer.

Chapter 18, §18.03 of the Code provides for judicial review of the final decision of the legislative hearing officer by the filing of an action seeking review in district court.

In August of 2007 Evelyn Wallace complied with that section of the Code by serving and filing this action seeking judicial review of the order of the legislative hearing officer. On May 30, 2008 the Plaintiffs sought a restraining order against the City restraining the City from taking further action concerning this property until this Court ruled on the merits of the Appeal.

On June 26, 2008 this Court scheduled a hearing “on judicial review for determination of a final decision of a legislative officer and for temporary restraining order.” During that hearing, the Court invited arguments on the effect of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008).

B. Argument:

1. The registered vacant building regulations contained in the City’s Legislative Code are unenforceable because they are different than the provisions of the State Building Code.

City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.

In City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008), the City of Morris sought a temporary injunction to prevent the owner of a building from renting his property as housing until the owner corrected deficiencies identified during an inspection done pursuant to the city’s licensing ordinance for rental housing. The owner counterclaimed for an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing any portion of the ordinance that was in conflict with the State Building Code.

The issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether a city could enforce ordinances that were more stringent that the State Building Code. The Court recognized that “municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820 (1966).

The Court also recognized that “[w]hen a statute contains specific language as to the extent of permissible municipal regulation, our focus is on the language of the statute.” City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008); State v. Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Minn.2007).

The Court found that the State Building Code contained specific language that restricted a city’s authority to regulate matters covered by the State Code. Minn. St. §16B.62 (Subd.1) expressly provides that “The State Building Code applies statewide and supersedes the building code of
any municipality.” And Minn. Rule 1300.0040 (2005) provides that the “code applies statewide … and supersedes the building code of any municipality.”

The Supreme Court held that a City’s regulation of a matter that is included in the State Building Code cannot be “different” than the State Code. (“Thus, even a provision that is merely additional and complementary to a provision in the State Building Code is prohibited”). City of Morris, supra, 749 N.W.2d @10.

State Building Code

The State Building Code provides the exclusive method for a city to manage vacant buildings. Minnesota Rules, 1300.0180, entitled Unsafe Buildings or Structures, provides:

A building or structure regulated by the code is unsafe, for purposes of this part, if it is structurally unsafe, not provided with adequate egress, a fire hazard, or otherwise dangerous to human life.

Building service equipment that is regulated by the code is unsafe, for purposes of this part, if it is a fire, electrical, or health hazard; an unsanitary condition; or otherwise dangerous to human life. Use of a building, structure, or building service equipment constituting a hazard to safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment is, for the purposes of this part, an unsafe use. Parapet walls, cornices, spires, towers, tanks, statuary, and other appendages or structural members that are supported by, attached to, or a part of a building and that are in deteriorated condition or otherwise unable to sustain the design loads that are specified in the code are unsafe building appendages.

The building official may order any building or portion of a building to be vacated if continued use is dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants. The order shall be in writing and state the reasons for the action.

All unsafe buildings, structures, or appendages are public nuisances and must be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal according to Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 to 463.26.

Under the State Building Code, there must be a finding that the continued use of the building “… is dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants” and there must be a written order stating the “the reasons for the action.”

The State Building Code further provides that before a municipality can order that a building be vacated, the City must follow the statutory procedure set forth in Minn. Stat. §§463.15 to 463.26. Minn. Stat. §463.17 provides:

Subdivision 1. Contents. The order shall be in writing; recite the grounds therefor; specify the necessary repairs, if any, and provide a reasonable time for compliance; and shall state that a motion for summary enforcement of the order will be made to the district court of the county in which the hazardous building or property is situated unless corrective action is taken …”

Subdivision 2. . Service. The order shall be served upon the owner of record, or the owner's agent if an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shall be served upon the owner by posting it at the main entrance to the building or, if there is no building, in a conspicuous place on the property, and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county.

Subdivision 3. Filing. A copy of the order with proof of service shall be filed with the court administrator of district court of the county in which the hazardous building or property is located not less than five days prior to the filing of a motion pursuant to section 463.19 to enforce the order. At the time of filing such order the municipality shall file for record with the county recorder or registrar of titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable certainty the lands affected and the nature of the order. If the proceeding be abandoned the municipality shall within ten days thereafter file with the county recorder a notice to that effect.



Saint Paul Legislative Code

The Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 43, §43.02 defines a vacant building as a building or portion of a building which is:

a. Unoccupied and unsecured;
b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means;
c. Unoccupied and a dangerous structure;
d. Unoccupied and condemned;
e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations;
f. Condemned and illegally occupied; or
g. Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred sixty-five (365) days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.

The City Code is substantially different than the State Code. First, the definition of a vacant building under the City Code allows the City to register a property as vacant that would not be classified as vacant under the State Building Code.

Second, the City Code requires the property owner to bring the property into full compliance with all “current codes and laws”. That provision is in direct conflict with the State Building Code. (“Finally, the State Building Code regulates the post-construction use of buildings by specifically allowing the occupancy of an existing building to continue without complying with current code requirements (nonconforming use) unless a code provision is “specifically applicable to existing buildings.” City of Morris, supra, 749 N.W.2d @ 9).

Third, the State Building Code requires the municipality to follow a procedure designed to assure that the owner of the property, and any subsequent purchaser, has received due process. Specifically, the State Code requires that “… the municipality … file for record with the county recorder or registrar of titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable certainty the lands affected and the nature of the order. If the proceeding be abandoned the municipality shall within ten days thereafter file with the county recorder a notice to that effect.” Minn. Stat. §463.17, Subd. 3.

City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008) does not allow the City to classify property as vacant without following the State Building Code. The City Code is substantially different than the State Code and, therefore, this Court should order the City to remove the registered vacant building classification on this property.

2. The City Code, as implemented by the City, allows for an unconstitutional taking of property.

The City Code does not authorize the City to register property as vacant property. Section 43.02 (7) allows an owner to voluntarily register his property as a vacant building (“The owner shall register … “). By classifying this property as vacant, without the consent or permission of the owner, the City has acted beyond the authority of both the State Code and the City Code.

The City can only cause property to be classified as vacant by following the State Code, which requires a showing that the property is “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant” and which requires the City to follow the due process requirements mandated by Minnesota Statutes and to file the Order with the county recorder so that a subsequent purchaser has notice of the Order.

If the City followed the Statute, Evelyn Wallace would have received notice that she was purchasing a house that had been registered as vacant. But because the City did not follow the Statute, Evelyn Wallace had no actual or constructive notice that the property she was purchasing had been classified as a vacant building. That classification adversely affects her rights as an owner.

Chapter 43, §43.03 of the Code imposes obligations on owners of registered vacant property. Those obligations include the assessment of vacant building fees, the requirement that the owner submit a plan and timetable that meets the approval of the enforcement officer, the potential obligation to pay penalties, the obligation to bring the property into full compliance with all current codes and laws, and certain requirements on the resale of the property. The owner of the property is denied occupancy of the building until all conditions required by the City are met.

Because of that, the City’s action in designating this property as a vacant building substantially infringes on Evelyn Wallace’s property rights. Government conduct that substantially infringes on a citizen’s property rights is considered a “taking” and requires that the government provide the citizen with due process before the City takes the property.

In this case, the City failed to provide Evelyn Wallace with any notice that this property had been designated as vacant property at the time she purchased the property. The City was required, pursuant to the State Building Code and the City Code to provide notice to both the owner and the mortgage holder that the property was being classified as a “vacant building” and the State Building Code requires that the City records the order with the County Recorder. The City failed to notice the mortgage holder and failed to record the vacant building order with the County Recorder.

The February 2007 Truth-in-Housing report specifically states this house is not a vacant building. Without the notice required under statute, required by the State Building Code, and required by the City Code, the City cannot constitutionally treat this property as a vacant building because that conduct amounts to a “taking” without due process.

To be enforceable, a lien or charge against real property must appear as a matter of record so that the purchaser of the property can discover that the property is subject to a lien or encumbrance. That is what is required by the State Building Code. Because the City does not record vacant building registrations with the Ramsey County Recorder, and because the Truth-in-Housing report in this case did not identify this property as a vacant building, Evelyn Wallace had no actual or constructive notice of this designation at the time she purchased this property.

The only concerns the City ever raised about this property were that the electricity had been turned off, and that the roof needed repair. But under the State Building Code these conditions cannot be the basis for declaring a house a vacant building. The City cannot use these conditions to force an owner of property to vacate her home without a specific finding that these conditions make the home “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.”

The electrical system in this house is in full compliance with the State Building Code and the City has not, and cannot, show that having the electrical system turned off is “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.” Similarly, the City has not, and cannot, show that a roof in need of repair makes a house “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.”

City of Morris v. Sax prohibits the City from entering a person’s home, inspecting the home, and forcing a person to vacate that home, without meeting the substantive and procedural requirements of the State Building Code.

For these reasons, Evelyn Wallace respectfully requests that this Court order that the City of Saint Paul remove the vacant building classification on this property.

Very truly yours,


PATRICK T. TIERNEY

12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The City Code does not authorize the City to register property as vacant property. Section 43.02 (7) allows an owner to voluntarily register his property as a vacant building (“The owner shall register … “). By classifying this property as vacant, without the consent or permission of the owner, the City has acted beyond the authority of both the State Code and the City Code.

This city does as it damn well pleases. To hell with the law and civil rights.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

go get them . Nancy.Hey eric its seems like the city is screw.

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like very solid and straightforward arguments.

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Nancy, you have done what none one here has, shut me down for a while.

For reasons I don't owe any of you, I can't comment on the case as long as Tierney is handling it.

We'll see when the facts play themselves out.
--------

So, I assume you won't be suing the city and recalling their seats because you feel your right to disrupt a public hearing was violated? You promised something by yesterday.


Eric

3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leslie, please for the love of all that is holy, figure out how to use suffixes

Eric

3:37 PM  
Anonymous Morris v. Sax A-08-1188 said...

Sites are changed, Archives of Law Library pdf format

Apparantly there may be a few Honest Lawyers, ready to take on the City?
GO GET EM NANCY

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0805/OPA061188-0515.pdf
S Y L L A B U S
1. When the express language of a state statute defines the scope of permissible municipal regulations, we determine the validity of municipal regulations on the same subject by applying the plain language of the statute.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1 (2006), a municipal rental licensing ordinance regulating components or systems of a residential structure covered by the State Building Code is invalid where the municipal ordinance imposes different requirements than the State Building Code.
3. Inspection standards in a municipal rental licensing ordinance regulating ground fault interrupter receptacles, bathroom ventilation, and egress window covers are invalid under Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1, because the inspection standards are building"

4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy must be on the right track, judging from the number of eric's post's regarding her recently.

5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy's on the right track and so are the ricomen and so will be all the others who follow because the Lantry gang was to stupid and too arrogant to settle this thing years ago when they had the chance, or maybe even way before that when they could have just sat down and had a talk! But no....they like to fight! They like to show people who the boss is! They like people in their proper place where you either don't question anything or you be a good little boy like Chuck and Eric and just take the treats they throw to you. Or your just a dumbell like Amanda who confuses everything sensible with her retarded rantings.

Nancy followed through and delivered. And I believe she has a coupel of threats to make good on yet. Hopefully they will have the same quality and substance as this does. Ricomen are on deck.....I can't wait to see what their response is.

5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This administration sure attracts a lot of fights and folks sometimes no matter how right and good you are you will lose.


St.Paul has some tough days ahead.


Good job Nancy.



Tim Ciani

5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's coming to the time when the fat lady will sing in the City Council chambers. And Helgen will be on the floor crying like a baby.

Coming soon to a City Council near you!

6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ricomen gonna shut you down too Eric. They just haven't gotten to it yet. Your time is almost up my man. No more good reputation for you. Shortly, you'll be looking like the fool you are. Better get over to our side Eric while the gettin is good.

10:32 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:10 PM  
Anonymous click here said...

super laywer

11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She gonna cook your ass now Eric.

How bout you Repke? Step in here with that big mouth of yours and spin this.

You're both going to look like a couple of fools when all these deals get done.

Ricomen and Nancy gonna roll all this stuff up real nice and hang around Lantry's neck for ya and then shove her out to explain to the voters why she drove up the costs of all these lawsuits.

Don't go away now boys, we're not quite done with you yet!

12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck what does Dave have to say about whats about to hit the city like a ton of bricks?You two were out tonight holding hands and sharing a wine.Please enlighten us,sir.


I think the city has pushed around the wrong people and have a real wing dinger on their hands.

12:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

State Code says... "Use of a building, structure, or building service equipment constituting a hazard to safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment is, for the purposes of this part, an unsafe use.

"abandonment" notice that word...

City Code:
a. Unoccupied and unsecured;
b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means;
c. Unoccupied and a dangerous structure;
d. Unoccupied and condemned;
e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations;

It would appear that what the City Code spells out as vacant is what the state would deam to be "abandonment." They simply spell it out.

Since the City Code is basically the same as the State's then they are in compliance with Morris V Sax.

And, since the City is complying with the state building code for dealing with an abandoned property than there is no illegal taking.

There is no there, there.

Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past Present Or Future

(Please I have no idea how my ex-boss from more than 10 years ago thinks about these silly cases)

Chuck Repke

12:57 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

The electrical system in this house is in full compliance with the State Building Code and the City has not, and cannot, show that having the electrical system turned off is “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.” Similarly, the City has not, and cannot, show that a roof in need of repair makes a house “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.”

City of Morris v. Sax prohibits the City from entering a person’s home, inspecting the home, and forcing a person to vacate that home, without meeting the substantive and procedural requirements of the State Building Code.

*Looks like the city is in a whole lot of trouble condemining homes for delinquent utilities. I feel X-Cel should be sues for complicity, they have violated privacy laws.

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I spent an entire thread proofing everything I said with researchable facts just to be faced with the retort equivalent to "I know you are but, what am I?". Its tired.

All you're asking in this case that the vacant building classification be removed. The case will be about 'why'.

For the folks who parents are obviously first cousins--I have no skin in this. None. My ass, or any part of it won't be cooked because I am not to benefit with a win or a loss.

This case has been debated on here. Let's see if Pat can present something out that hasn't been brought up. I suspect that's why the lack of comment on this, we've beat it up back and forth already(except the comments letting Chuck and I know that Lantry and the council are supposedly going to get theirs).

The only thing that's change is that somehow, you found the where-with-all to hire a very competent attorney. It was only two weeks ago that you couldn't scrounge up the selflessness to get a public defender for your daughter.

If we are going to discuss the Public Hearing and your huffing and puffing about rights being violated, then start a new thread.


Me time here hath expired.

Eric

2:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the state is paying for that lawyer Eric. You and me!

3:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Buck up" and take it like a man chump.....your side is about to lose! That's why your time hath expired, you don't want to be around for the humiliation after all this time you've been sticking up for the city.

4:44 AM  
Anonymous Patick T.Tierney law cases said...

Apparantly Tierney wins on Appeal
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/416/416.F3d.864.04-3040.html

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

eric,

It is time for you too kiss landlord ass. Because thye will all the city money soon.

And Nancy will get the job done.
The state say that you can shute off your power at any time.

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

eric,

It is time for you too kiss landlord ass. Because thye will all the city money soon.

And Nancy will get the job done.
The state say that you can shute off your power at any time.

10:13 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:00 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

This is my complaint to X-Cel.

X-cel informs the city of when a utility bill is delinquent on a home and they have discontinued service. Then the city condemns the home for lack of utilities.

Why is x-cel involved in a partnership of illegal activity with the City of Saint Paul? Citizens are gearing up for litigation against X-Cel for this activity.

Read more about this issue at the following link.

http://ademocracy.blogspot.com/2008/08/saint-paul-update-nancy-lazaryans.html

Respectfully,

Bob Johnson
Host of the
A Democracy Town Hall Meeting

http://www.ademocracy.blogspot.com/

If you would like to voice your concerns to X-Cel Energy here is the link.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

X-Cel has been violating privacy laws sharing consumer information with the city. I think they have a liability to the consumers they violated.

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Kelo v. City New London said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks shutting of the power and water is another sign of abandonment. Abandonment is by the state building code a hazord.

The building was abandoned that made it a hazord there is no violation of Morris V Sax. There is no standard in Saint Paul separate from the state code.

What part of the state building code don't you get?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, a building isn't "abandoned" even with all the utilities shut off if it is occupied by people!

Define abandonment for us Chuck.

12:15 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:53 AM  
Anonymous MS 463 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:08 AM  
Anonymous Bill CUllen said...

Chuck,

Abandonment is an action, not a condition. It is linguisticly accurate to say an owner has abandoned a house, it is inaccurate to say a house has abandoned (like one would say a house has peeling paint).

The difference is critical. A very good friend of mine got tired of paying an electric bill on his cabin, so he turned off the electric service and when he visits he hooks up a generator (This guy is a licensed electriction – I don’t recommend this). He also vacations there only a few week-ends a year.

By State law, would you consider the home abandoned? The home is seldom occupied and lacks critical services. However, the owner has NO INTENT of abandoning the home.

IMHO, for St. Paul to use the abandonment argument, they would have to argue Nancy’s intent. When Nancy is saying – and doing -- the opposite, your argument seems difficult to accept.

Bill Cullen.

9:56 AM  
Anonymous MS429.061 Assess Proc said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The treatment Nancy mentions of the woman having her house condemned due to not having access to the billing - this reeks - The city never would have done this before.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Chuck,

shown or tell me where in the states codes that talks about that.

City is acting ilegal when its forces excel. To tell them when they shut off some one power.

The city laws is ilegal and its actions also, ilegal.

1:25 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

eric,

you are full of shit. You need to eat some crow soon. And the neighbors around my properties are upset with the city too. One neighbor bitch out a code enforcement office last thursday.

Two more more neighbors told them
to f---k out here or I will call the police on you. for treaspass.

They all feel that that city council is screw up. They want them out of office soon.

1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill State Code says... "Use of a building, structure, or building service equipment constituting a hazard to safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment is, for the purposes of this part, an unsafe use.

Notice the word abandonment. So, when the City says with over 100,000 housing units in a city we need some reasonable way of determining abondonment, that the action of turning off your power and water would be abandoment would be to any rational person following the state code.

No Bill we are talking about a City you can not operate a generator to power your house and you can not shit in a tin can and carry it out and dump it in the street. It a City.

If you are in a City and you no longer have power or water you have abandoned the house.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:42 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

Show me it the code. Where in the code that said that . That you need to bring it up to code.

Or do a code complicance to it.
Or demo it. What chapter or sections said that?

8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leslie,
I've warning you for the last time. Either start using suffixes or stop insulting me. You must cease addressing me if you are going to force me to decipher your insults.

Take your time and read it before you send it off.
Click Here


Eric

10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Eric......are you saying it's OK to insult you as long as we use the proper grammar?

2:14 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:54 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

Nancy,
If your going to try and smart-off to someone, how about trying to be smart? Mis-types aren't considered bad grammar. I'm sure I've spelled 'I'm' correctly and used it properly before. Leslie excludes a whole section of grammar called suffixes. Or, were you behind the bleacher with your boyfriend and his buddies at Tartan when papers were being graded in expository writing class?

2:14
I've been the object of insults for two years on here and my life has only gotten better. What do I care?

Eric

3:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home