Laserfiche WebLink
September 13, 1976 Page 2 <br />Mr. Lindgren stated he got one notice of violation by certified mail and <br />then someone else came over and thumb tacked one of these notices in his <br />entryway. If the City can do duplicate work on this, then why didn't I <br />get my intial notice? Atty. Meyers stated that the duplicate violation <br />notices are required by law. The City has no right to damage private property. <br />Mr. Lindgren asked if the City wasn't getting a little heavy on all this <br />criminal action thing? It was brought out at the informational meeting <br />that he probably would not get into much of a problem because things are <br />in such good shape around here. Mr. Lindgren stated that doubling the <br />registration fee to $30 is not reasonable. <br />Atty. Meyers explained that this ordinance was adopted because some properties <br />are not in good shape. The City hopes to bring the bad buildings up to <br />code requirements. It does sound heavy for a single unit to pay $30, <br />but we must go through the same procedures with all owners or we would be <br />guilty of discriminatory action. <br />Mayor Pickar stated he would like to find out about the damage to the <br />property, if there is such a thing. Mr. Lindgren asked what he should do, <br />take it to small claims court? There has got to be a line drawn somewhere. <br />Mr. Lindgren stated that he does not subscribe to the paper because he <br />does not see that much in the New Brighton Bulletin. Councilmember Baumgartner <br />stated that it would have saved him $30. It has been the official paper <br />for years. <br />Councilmember Hodges questioned a complaint from Mr. Lindgren about Tom <br />Thumb. Mr. Lindgren explained that Tom Thumb is reminiscent of a garbage <br />dump. If the City can say how to keep my property, then what about a <br />business? Mr. Lindgren stated he felt the City is being discriminatory <br />against rental property. <br />At 8:20 p.m. Mayor Pickar recessed the regular Council meeting and called <br />to order the assessment hearing relative to 8360 Spring Lake Road, Improvement <br />Project 1973 -4. <br />Atty. Meyers asked if anyone was present to represent Mr. $ Mrs. Dumas. <br />Atty. Meyers explained that the Council was considering the imposition of <br />assessments on the property owned by Mr. & Mrs. Dumas and then reviewed <br />the background of this case. The back of the Dumas property now faces a <br />new street. The assessments were challenged by the Dumas' and the district <br />court ordered the matter be returned to the City for reassessment. This <br />particular hearing tonight is to consider the reassessment for the property. <br />The Dumas' attorney, Mr. Rubenstein of O'Connor $ Hannan, sent a letter to <br />the Council dated September 9, 1976, representing their objections. Atty. <br />Meyers then read the letter in which Mr. Rubenstein indicated that he <br />represents these people and they are opposed to the proposed assessment of <br />$8,100.82. Objection to this assessment is on the following grounds: the <br />property is not benefitted by the assessment - the original assessment was <br />set aside by the Court because the Court felt there was no benefit to the <br />property -if assessed now it would be a direct violation of the court <br />order - would require the Dumas' to take extra effort to get the assessment <br />set aside - if the assessment is adopted and then is set aside he would <br />