Custom Search

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Property Investors Win One! Bee Vue, et al., Relators, vs. City of Saint Paul, Respondent.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

45 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

There maybe copy errors.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A09-531

Bee Vue, et al., Relators, vs. City of Saint Paul, Respondent.

Filed April 13, 2010
Reversed
Peterson, Judge

City of St. Paul
File No. 09-316
Paul F. Shoemaker, John R. Shoemaker, Bloomington, Minnesota (for relators)
John J. Choi, St. Paul City Attorney, Virginia D. Palmer, Assistant City Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Shumaker, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
PETERSON, Judge

In this certiorari appeal, relators challenge a city-council resolution ordering the demolition of a building. Because the city council failed to consider an important aspect of the issue, its decision is arbitrary and capricious, and we reverse.

12:16 PM  
Anonymous Ruling continued said...

FACTS

Relators Bee Vue and Lamena Vue own a building located at 393-397 Case Avenue in St. Paul (the building). The building is a one-story former storefront-residence combination that was converted to strictly residential use. The building, which has been registered as vacant since September 27, 2007, has recently been maintained as a residential duplex in violation of zoning requirements. At some point, the city boarded up the building’s windows to secure it from trespass. Four summary abatement notices have been issued for the building since 2007.

Following an October 6, 2008, inspection, an order to abate a nuisance building regarding relator’s building was posted by the City of St. Paul on November 14, 2008, with a compliance date of December 15, 2008. The building was deemed to “comprise a nuisance condition in violation of the Saint Paul legislative Code, Chapter 45.02” and was “subject to demolition under authority of Chapter 45.11.” The accompanying code-compliance report listed 59 notes and deficiencies that were divided among the subheadings “Building,” “Electrical,” “Plumbing,” “Heating,” and “Zoning.” The order to abate stated that failure to take corrective action within the specified time would result in city-council action.
On December 19, 2008, St. Paul Vacant Buildings Manager Steve Magner sent a “Notice of Public Hearings” to relator Bee Vue. The notice stated that the nuisance at relators’ property had not been addressed as of a December 16, 2008, re-inspection and that a legislative hearing regarding the repair or removal of the nuisance building would be held on February 24, 2009, followed by a city-council hearing on March 18, 2009.

12:18 PM  
Anonymous Ruling continued said...

The notice stated that it was the recommendation of the department of safety and inspections that a resolution be passed ordering the responsible person to abate or demolish and, failing that, that the city proceed to demolition and removal.
Bee Vue appeared at the February 24 legislative hearing. He testified that, with regard to the building’s rehabilitation, the plumbing was complete, the electrical was almost done, the heating was complete, the interior had been painted, and that carpeting, windows, and doors still needed to be installed or replaced. Magner testified that some required permits had been pulled but that no application had been received for others. Legislative Hearing Officer Marcia Moermond recommended continuing the hearing to March 10, and relator was given eight conditions to meet, including that relator pay delinquent property taxes; pull the proper work permits; and address the exterior aesthetics of the building, possibly by consulting an architect.
Relators appeared at the continued legislative hearing on March 10, 2009. Following the February 24 hearing, an electrical permit and a mechanical permit were issued for the building. But relators had not contacted an architect or addressed the exterior of the building. Moermond stated that she would review the record and submit a recommendation to the city council.
On March 18, 2009, the issue of relators’ building came before the city council. At the council meeting, Moermond presented a staff report indicating, in part through the submission of photographs, that a nuisance still existed, and she recommended that the city council adopt a resolution ordering removal of the building within 15 days with no option for repair. Relators also appeared before the city council. Bee Vue stated that he

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Ruling continued said...

had nearly completed the rehabilitation of the items listed in the code-compliance report, and that the heating, electrical, and plumbing items had been addressed. Vue stated that Moermond’s report was not completely true. Vue also stated that he had tried to consult with an architect, but he questioned whether he should have to address the aesthetic state of the building because that did not relate to a code requirement. Vue distributed a packet of information to the city-council members to demonstrate his progress toward abating the nuisance.1
After closing the public hearing, council member Lee Helgen expressed concerns about the building:

[This property is] in a location where having a blighted property with high traffic, high density, police calls right next to an elementary school is unacceptable. And I think it’s unacceptable that he’s had this property in his ownership a couple different times, and I can tell you the condition of the property hasn’t changed from when he owned it back in 2004 to what it is now. It’s just rotted. And I don’t know about all of the transactions that have happened in the course of this, so I’m not at all inclined to want to have this rehabbed; I’d much prefer to see it demoed[.] . . . And I would recommend a five-day removal on this order.

It is not clear from the record what information was included in the packet. One council member referred to the packet during the meeting while discussing relators’ payment of delinquent property taxes. And at the close of the public hearing, a council member thanked relator for the packet of information. However, the packet of information does not appear to be included in the appellate file prepared by the city clerk. The appendix to relators’ appellate brief includes 101 pages of documents that are not in the appellate file. It is not clear whether the packet distributed to the city council included these documents. Among the documents are relator’s bank-account statement, an affidavit by relator, various letters, invoices, and receipts for payment for services (including an invoice from a plumbing company and a receipt of payment from a heating company), and documents arising from a federal district court case regarding another property owned by relators.

12:21 PM  
Anonymous Ruling continued said...

By a vote of four to zero, the city council adopted an amended resolution to demolish and remove the structure within five days without option to rehabilitate. Relators filed a timely petition for a writ of certiorari, and this appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

A city-council action is quasi-judicial and is subject to certiorari review by this court “if it is the product or result of discretionary investigation, consideration, and evaluation of evidentiary facts.” Pierce v. Otter Tail County, 524 N.W.2d 308, 309 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Feb. 3, 1995). Certiorari review is limited “to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [decision-making body], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992) (quotation omitted). As a reviewing body, this court does not retry facts or make credibility determinations; it will uphold the decision if the decision-making body “furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken.” Senior v. City of Edina, 547 N.W.2d 411, 416 (Minn. App. 1996) (quotation omitted).

Relators argue that the city council’s decision to pass the resolution was arbitrary and capricious. A quasi-judicial decision will be deemed arbitrary and capricious if the decision-making body “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the issue.” Rostamkhani v. City of St. Paul, 645 N.W.2d 479, 484 (Minn. App. 2002).
The city council passed the resolution to demolish relators’ building under its authority to abate nuisances granted by statute and by ordinance. See Minn. Stat.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Ruling continued said...

§ 412.221, subd. 23 (2008) (granting cities “power by ordinance to define nuisances and provide for their prevention or abatement”); St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code §§ 45.08-.14 (2009) (granting the city authority to order abatement of and to abate nuisances and defining procedure for the city’s nuisance-abatement actions). But in order for the city to act to abate a nuisance, a nuisance must exist. St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code § 45.10(5), .11. Consequently, whether a nuisance exists is an important aspect of this issue.

Although the resolution passed by the city states that “the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45,” relators presented evidence that the city’s evidence of a nuisance was stale and that the nuisance had been abated or was in the process of being abated. While speaking to the council during the March 18 city-council meeting, relators stated that the electrical, plumbing, heating, and painting work had been completed. Bee Vue stated that the remaining work to be completed was limited to “the windows, the cupboardings, and some of the aesthetic stuff on the inside.” He estimated that, overall, 80% of the work had been completed. Despite this information, and although relators had requested an updated inspection, nothing in the record indicates that the city had recently inspected or planned to inspect the building to ensure that the finding of a nuisance was currently correct. The record indicates that the last inspection performed by the city occurred 92 days before the city-council meeting.

Furthermore, a video recording of the city-council meeting shows that relator distributed to the council members a packet of information documenting his progress on the building. It appears from the video recording that the city council could not have considered the contents of the packet before passing its resolution because at every point during the approximately 13 minutes between the packet’s distribution and the city council’s vote, either a relator or a council member was speaking.

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Ruling conclusion said...

Even though sections 45.10(5) and 45.11 of the St. Paul legislative code require that a nuisance exist in order for the city to take abatement action, the city disregarded relators’ evidence that the nuisance had been abated in the three months since the last inspection. The record contains evidence that the building was in the process of being rehabilitated and does not indicate that the city determined whether the building continued to constitute a nuisance. In light of this deficiency, we conclude that the city council entirely failed to consider whether relators’ building constituted a nuisance at the time of the city council’s resolution and, therefore, acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Reversed.

12:25 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

This is just the beginning of an avalanche of lawsuits kicking the crap out of arrogance in city hall.

There will be far reaching political consequences for many in city hall.

Helgen, you are a piece of shit and I promise you this is your last term as a city council member. I and others will see to it.

All those responsible for civil rights violations, we are coming for you!

12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait till the mandlords kick thier ass. The there will be a sunami of lawsuits from people looking for justice.

This is your Que Eric to just pop right in and start trash talking Bee. What gossip or other made up DFL bullshit do you have to spin on him?

1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About time someone puts them in their place. These mobsters working out of city hall have overstayed their welcome. I think it's time for some new leadership in the city.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What this proves is that there is/was and always has been an avenue in State Court for any decision of the City Council on abatement's that weren't proper.

Remember the point of your Federal Case is that this doesn't happen. That there was no place that anyone could take their grievance to. The state courts are in bed with the City... remember?

Bee just showed what you always had the power to do if you felt that the council was out of line. Take the case to the court of appeals.

What he won on was that the City didn't send someone to inspect the house in the 90 days between all of the extensions they had given Bee. Since they hadn't they had no way to know if what he was saying was true or not and they should have laid the issue over for another week to get another inspection.

That is all that he proved. The council should have sent an inspector through the building to verify what Bee said or not.

It is why they sent the inspectors through Jessimine to make sure the building was still being held up by jacks and was one good bump from falling into the basement...

Inspect...inspect...inspect...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bee also said he wasn't going to do some of the repairs because it wasn't legal

4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jessamine ws 1 bump from falling over? You are nuts Chcuk. They had trouble knocking it down because it was so solid. The only thing that jack was for was to try and level out one of the floors. And lets not forget the inspector who looked at it and said it was OK until he was pressured by the city to chnge his mind.

5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, he got a decision reversed in state court? Big Deal and good for him. So, did he break the bank? Anyone get fired? Was it civil rights suit? No to all of that. He won on procedures, not conspiracy.

Bob said:
Helgen, you are a piece of shit and I promise you this is your last term as a city council member. I and others will see to it.

Wow. Did he piss in your cornflakes? Lee won't be going anywhere unless he decides to run for Mayor. You guy promised a fight last time around and I was very disappointed and bored that you didn't bring any action. I doubt if Helgen was ever or should ever be concerned.

Easy campaign. Whomever you nominate, I'll just put together a mail piece with photos of the rental property in the district with all of violations and let the most frequent voters, those landlords support your candidate. What neighborhood do you think will support you candidate? Frogtown, EastSide, North End or Como?

All those responsible for civil rights violations, we are coming for you!
12:49 PM


You still supporting that voter ID push by Kiffmeyers group?
Just checking.


Eric

7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The court determined that some of Eric and Chuck's friends just don't care about doing a responsible job.

7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From reading the court stuff it appears to me that the problem was that the city wanted him to get architects and change the look of the building and the city ordinance or the state building code does not allow that. But who cares about what the law says. The city council just does as they want with the attitude that if you do not like it you can just get an attorney and sue. They know full well most peole do not have the money to start a legal fight with them so they always win by default in a system deliberatly set up to say the hell with the law and the hell with fairness and the hell with doing what the right thing is. It is not about safety it is about doing what they want. To them the law is what they say it is and CHuck and Eric seem to agree as long as it does not go against their political party interests.

9:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

ob said:
Helgen, you are a piece of shit and I promise you this is your last term as a city council member. I and others will see to it.

Eric's response;
Wow. Did he piss in your cornflakes? Lee won't be going anywhere unless he decides to run for Mayor. You guy promised a fight last time around and I was very disappointed and bored that you didn't bring any action. I doubt if Helgen was ever or should ever be concerned.

My response;
He didn't piss in my cornflakes. Although he did piss on a large number of citizens in Saint Paul. This guy is predatory like a wolf pissing on trees and street corners claiming his territory with the stench of his yearn.

I think "some" citizens he pissed on will feel some gratification over my vulgar language directed at him.

How many home owners can afford to jump threw all these legal hoops. Very few and like another poster said, city hall counts on this.

As far as the last election. I couldn't get the support to oust Helgen. Folks wanted to spend their money on lawsuits. Now people in our group are starting to feel we need to educate the public. What did Helgen win by 50 something votes or less. I don't remember but I know it was a very small number. If I had distributed the Watchdog with a few choice stories Haas would have been a council member.

I don't care who gets Helgens office Eric. I and others just don't want an arrogant civil rights breaking asshole in that office anymore. We also don't want some idiot giving us lip service of concerns over gentrification.

So go pick yourself a candidate. Helgens history.

11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lantry is another piece of crap that needs to go when the elections roll around.

1:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said:
What this proves is that there is/was and always has been an avenue in State Court for any decision of the City Council on abatement's that weren't proper.

Chuck Everyday the city is pulling a fast one on us the public.
That's ok if they are DFL'ers, but if a Republican did the same thing you and that other friend of the city is always on saying we were mistaken about the matter.

6:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please excuse my choice of words but... Chuck you can kiss my ass! Your not worth debating the jack issue and false info...

Have a good day.

Nancy O

7:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lantry is another piece of crap that needs to go when the elections roll around."
Lantry is one UGLY beotch. Her ugly attitude toward the citizens of St. Paul must originate from the disgust she feels when she looks in the mirror in the morning.

11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy it isn't fair can we get in line behind Chuck?

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember the ordeal with Nancy Osterman. When I saw her post I st back and thought for a moment about how much I miss her being here like she used to be. I also thought about the events at Jessamine St. and it occured to me how little has changed. Back then it ws the same old stuff. While Nancy proved her case over and over, the political hacks acted the same way then as they do now. They tried to use a silly little jack that they said was holding up the house when in relaity a jack that size would break if there were that much wieght on it from supporting a whole house. When the misinformation about the jack didn't work then they were slandering her character much like they are now with some of the others who have went against the political powers of the city. When that didn't work then they tried to get her to think the landlords were just using her. It's interesting how this blog has went from one person to another all amking the same complaints and none of them knowing each other but yet the arguments from the hacks remain the same. It's at the point where they seem to be asking us to not believe what we see with our own eyes! Unblieveable now that people are starting to win in the courts and now the argument is that the fact that they won shows the system that was fought against actually works! Kind of retarded thinking in my opinion.

12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the smart ones have already gone.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:56 - Look my point was that the Federal case that this site promotes rests on the basis that there wasn't this resource available to the petitioners.

They always could take the case to the court of appeals.

And, even on this one if Bee doesn't have the work done, the City will still demo. The court just said its been 90 days since you looked at the place, look at it again.

Inspect, inspect, inspect.

There is nothing that says the City did anything wrong, just that they should have verified the information.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is nothing that says the City did anything wrong, just that they should have verified the information."

That's what it says on the sdurafce chuck but if you look at the order they do mention that he did the work and the sticking point was that they wanted him to hire an architect and change the outside and that is not covered or allowed by the code. Furthermore it seems Helgens concern was not that the place get repaired but rather how many times this woner had owned it. Once again they show their ture colors. Nothing of interest in the repiar department to the city or health and safety either. While the court made mention of the inspection deal they fail to mention anything about the illegal actions taken against this property owner with regards to the architect thing. This is not the only time the city has acted this way either. It's their normal way of operating.

5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way.I forgot. I don't think the issues with the other lawsuit here could go the court of appeals because they are federal issues. The court of appeals would have thrown them out.

5:43 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

This is what the court said Chuck.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
PETERSON, Judge

In this certiorari appeal, relators challenge a city-council resolution ordering the demolition of a building. Because the city council failed to consider an important aspect of the issue, its decision is arbitrary and capricious, and we reverse.

The term "arbitrary" describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.

An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence.

In many instances, the term implies an element of bad faith, and it may be used synonymously with "tyrannical" or "despotic".

The term arbitrary refers to the standard of review used by courts when reviewing a variety of decisions on appeal. For example, the arbitrary and capricious standard of review is the principle standard of review used by judicial courts hearing appeals that challenge decisions issued by administrative bodies.

"TYRANNICAL" or "DESPOTIC". ummh!

"Capricious" adv., adj. unpredictable and subject to whim, often used to refer to judges and judicial decisions which do not follow the law, logic or proper trial procedure. A semi-polite way of saying a judge is inconsistent or erratic.

"Or an impolite way of saying the city schooled the judge in the outcome they expect".

"Des·pot" (dspt)
n.
1. A ruler with absolute power.
2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.
3.
a. A Byzantine emperor or prince.
b. An Eastern Orthodox bishop or patriarch

Arbitrary, capricious, Despotic, Tyrannical..

5:52 PM  
Anonymous Pioneer Press said...

Court tosses St. Paul demolition order
Pioneer Press

Updated: 04/14/2010 03:00:18 PM CDT


By Dave Orrick

dorrick@pioneerpress.com

A St. Paul landowner with a history of feuds with the city scored a victory Tuesday.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a unanimous decision by The St. Paul City Council to order a building owned by Bee Vue demolished a year ago.

The building, located at 393-397 Case Ave. on the city's East Side, had been vacant since 2007 and contained numerous safety code violations. But Bee Vue maintained he had fixed most of them or was in the process of fixing them.

During a public hearing, which is similar to a mini-trial, City Council Member Lee Helgen, whose ward contains the building, didn't buy Bee Vue's argument. He called the building "rotted" and pushed for the demolition. Other council members, in common deference to the member whose ward is affected, supported him.

But the court of appeals decided that City Council members didn't really take Bee Vue's side into account.

In the opinion, Judge Randolph Peterson wrote: "... a video recording of the city-council meeting shows that (Bee Vue) distributed to the council members a packet of information documenting his progress on the building. It appears from the video recording that the city council could not have considered the contents of the packet before passing its resolution because at every point during the approximately 13 minutes between the packet's distribution and the city council's vote, either a relator or a council member was speaking."
Bee Vue's attorney said he was pleased with the ruling.

6:57 PM  
Anonymous LINK HERE said...

Hi All,

Come and join us at the Pioneer Press

"Court tosses St. Paul demolition order"

Bob

7:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob said, "An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence."

That is the point. Bee hands them a stack of information at the hearing and they say, nope the work isn't done we are moving to demo....

They needed to close the hearing, have the inspector go back to the building and verify that the work was either done or not done. Have the inspector come back the next week and then rule on the issues.

The council when they lose on these things always loses when they rush the issue at the end. This was another one that went on for eighteen months and then at the end the council in frustration says nope, 5 days.

They win on court when they measure their response and inspect, inspect, inspect.

Like I said the issue hear was that the Judge sees it as, how did you know that Bee wasn't telling you the truth you didn't send anyone out to check. While the council is seeing it as if he isn't done, he isn't done and we have been dealing with this thing for 18 months and we don't want to deal with it anymore.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The City of St. Paul was "dealing with it for 18 months"? Wrong. Check the facts. Vue acquired the property from a Bank in September 2008. The City voted to demo only within 6 months.

Also, there were no structural issues whatsoever (including the metal jack under the stick/porch addition) referenced in Seeger's original code compliance report made on the condition of 14 Jessamine. The "metal jack" sitting under a wood frame porch addition to the main brick construction home only became an issue when the City reinspected following substantial remedial work to the property by the owner.
Metal jacks are commonly used in residential homes to provide partial support for/under extended overhangs for load bearing purposes.

9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The building, which has been registered as vacant since September 27, 2007, has recently been maintained as a residential duplex in violation of zoning requirements. At some point, the city boarded up the building’s windows to secure it from trespass. Four summary abatement notices have been issued for the building since 2007."

What part of 2007 can you not read?

Just because the owner changed it didn't stop being a pain.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounded to me like the work was done and the documents he gave the council were reciepts and contracts for the work. The sticking point was that they wanted him to hire an architect to change the appearance of the exterior and that is not allowed by the city code or the state building code. He refused to do it so they wanted to punish him. Wrong again Chcuk.

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Repke? Every time I'm headed out of the city on 7th St. that hut you live in on 7th waffs out at me like a flourescent fish in a swimming pool. When you going to start fixing?

2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vue beat the city and the landlords in federal court are going to beat them too. The will come the onslaught of lawsuits by all the others that have victimized by this rotten city council.

2:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Promises, promises.

Individual landlords have prevailed at the city council in the past too. None of these are part of your lawsuit or making the claim that you're making. Its apples and lacrosse- they have nothing in common.

Some of you should be hearing my advice three years ago that said if you have individual evidence or specific issues with DSI, get out of this ridiculous lawsuit. You have a better chance with real evidence than this sweeping racketeering crap.

Eric

8:40 AM  
Anonymous Fuck Saint Paul said...

From the decision, with emphasis added:

"Even though sections 45.10(5) and 45.11 of the St. Paul legislative code require that a nuisance exist in order for the city to take abatement action, the city disregarded relators’ evidence that the nuisance had been abated in the three months since the last inspection."

Does that sound like the entire 14 E. Jessamine case to anyone else?

" The record contains evidence that the building was in the process of being rehabilitated and does not indicate that the city determined whether the building continued to constitute a nuisance. In light of this deficiency, we conclude that the city council entirely failed to consider whether relators’ building constituted a nuisance at the time of the city council’s resolution and, therefore, acted arbitrarily and capriciously."

In other words, a judge has finally recognized what a bunch of tinhorn petty tyrants that the one-party thugs who run this city really are.

This case is going to cost the city well over 100,000 in legal fees, to say nothing of other damages.

And it should bring out a FLOOD of other people who've been fucked over by the thugocracy.l

Any comment, Eric? It looks as if your infallible city govermment has lost one!

4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Chuck says:

The council when they lose on these things always loses when they rush the issue at the end. This was another one that went on for eighteen months and then at the end the council in frustration says nope, 5 days.

What Chuck is really saying, although he probably doesn't know it:

"The council loses when the fail to follow the RULE OF LAW, and start making up the rules as they go along".

Which is a polite way of saying "acting like tyrants".

Which, Chuck, is what we're all complaining about; not the "right to be slumlords" that you and your not-gifted friend Eric are always whining about - what manipulative bullshit! - but to have government operate under the RULE OF LAW, rather than Lantry and Helgen's whim.

This whole thing started with Helgen acting on a whim (I don't give a shit that he was motivated by "frustration"). It ends with the City paying six figures in legal bills that we could have avoided by - hello, morons? - FOLLOWING THE LAW.

8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

I need to follow up:

This was another one that went on for eighteen months and then at the end the council in frustration says nope, 5 days.

Chuck, I'm curious as to why you forgive the Council because they're "frustrated". Frustration is no defense. If a property owner gets frustrated dealing with a passive-aggressive inspector and chokes him to death, it's still murder; being "frustrated" isn't a mitigating circumstance.

The court said the City Council OPERATED OUTSIDE THE LAW.

They win on court when they measure their response and inspect, inspect, inspect.

No, Chuck. THey "win" when they FOLLOW THE LAW.

And that's the problem we're seeing; in the Vue case, in the 14 Jessamine case, and in several others of which I'm personally aware, DSI and the Police broke or skirted THE LAW. Maybe it was to pressure people, maybe it was because our lords and lieges on the council were "frustrated", maybe it's because they were too lazy and figured their victims couldn't afford a fight. But they BROKE THE LAW.

And this city is full of cases where the City BREAKS THE LAW, but nobody knows, because the victims are poor, or too financially burdened trying to save their properties to hire lawyers. I know fucking well the city does this, because cops tell me they do it.

What property rights advocates need to do is go find all those stories - ALL of them. Put them in front of the media and the world. Every house condemned after an illegal search. Every shakedown. THe full weight of this city's corruption.

Then maybe we'll see some progress.

8:11 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

8:11 said;
What property rights advocates need to do is go find all those stories - ALL of them. Put them in front of the media and the world. Every house condemned after an illegal search. Every shakedown. THe full weight of this city's corruption.

Then maybe we'll see some progress.

My response;
It is a big job, there is folks investigating incidents. The stories trickle out here occasionally.

Great post 8:11

12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:11 - I agree with you and forgive nothing... The council made a mistake when it didn't reinspect the building. I said that earlier. The issue you will always have with elected officials in this situation is that when you see one lying ass hole after another give the same song and dance you stop listening and can get frustrated. But, it is their job to make sure procedures are followed. So, I don't excuse them.

I just try to explain what went wrong.

As I said had they sent an inspector out there and he would have come back saying the work wasn't done, they could have issued the orders then. If it was done, then it was done and the issue is settled.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I caught the Himmleresque Marcia Moermond lying, she has unenviable task of proposing the demolishion OPP (other people's property)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1qyPRQisWM

AJ

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction:

I caught the Himmleresque Marcia Moermond lying, she has unenviable task of proposing the demolition of OPP (other people's property)

Wath it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1qyPRQisWM

AJ

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Simple procedure for the City to demolish someone else's property.

1) lie
2) believe the lie
3) vote to remove
4) let property owner pickup the tab

Watch it here

5:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home