HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000042_pg254September 13, 1976 Page 2
Mr. Lindgren stated he got one notice of violation by certified mail and
then someone else came over and thumb tacked one of these notices in his
entryway. If the City can do duplicate work on this, then why didn't I
get my intial notice? Atty. Meyers stated that the duplicate violation
notices are required by law. The City has no right to damage private property.
Mr. Lindgren asked if the City wasn't getting a little heavy on all this
criminal action thing? It was brought out at the informational meeting
that he probably would not get into much of a problem because things are
in such good shape around here. Mr. Lindgren stated that doubling the
registration fee to $30 is not reasonable.
Atty. Meyers explained that this ordinance was adopted because some properties
are not in good shape. The City hopes to bring the bad buildings up to
code requirements. It does sound heavy for a single unit to pay $30,
but we must go through the same procedures with all owners or we would be
guilty of discriminatory action.
Mayor Pickar stated he would like to find out about the damage to the
property, if there is such a thing. Mr. Lindgren asked what he should do,
take it to small claims court? There has got to be a line drawn somewhere.
Mr. Lindgren stated that he does not subscribe to the paper because he
does not see that much in the New Brighton Bulletin. Councilmember Baumgartner
stated that it would have saved him $30. It has been the official paper
for years.
Councilmember Hodges questioned a complaint from Mr. Lindgren about Tom
Thumb. Mr. Lindgren explained that Tom Thumb is reminiscent of a garbage
dump. If the City can say how to keep my property, then what about a
business? Mr. Lindgren stated he felt the City is being discriminatory
against rental property.
At 8:20 p.m. Mayor Pickar recessed the regular Council meeting and called
to order the assessment hearing relative to 8360 Spring Lake Road, Improvement
Project 1973 -4.
Atty. Meyers asked if anyone was present to represent Mr. $ Mrs. Dumas.
Atty. Meyers explained that the Council was considering the imposition of
assessments on the property owned by Mr. & Mrs. Dumas and then reviewed
the background of this case. The back of the Dumas property now faces a
new street. The assessments were challenged by the Dumas' and the district
court ordered the matter be returned to the City for reassessment. This
particular hearing tonight is to consider the reassessment for the property.
The Dumas' attorney, Mr. Rubenstein of O'Connor $ Hannan, sent a letter to
the Council dated September 9, 1976, representing their objections. Atty.
Meyers then read the letter in which Mr. Rubenstein indicated that he
represents these people and they are opposed to the proposed assessment of
$8,100.82. Objection to this assessment is on the following grounds: the
property is not benefitted by the assessment - the original assessment was
set aside by the Court because the Court felt there was no benefit to the
property -if assessed now it would be a direct violation of the court
order - would require the Dumas' to take extra effort to get the assessment
set aside - if the assessment is adopted and then is set aside he would