Laserfiche WebLink
September 7th, 2016 <br />Dear Mayor and City Council, <br />I write to you on behalf of our families at Lowry Grove who have organized through the Lowry <br />Grove Resident Association. <br />Under Minnesota Statutes § 327C.095 Subd. 4, the City is required to review the closure <br />statement for Lowry Grove. You should know that the Minnesota Attorney General’s office has <br />closely reviewed the issues involved in the sale and closure of the Park and has submitted the <br />attached amicus curiae brief to the Court arguing that: the seller and buyer in this case violated § <br />327C.095 by denying residents a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right to purchase and <br />preserve the Park as a manufactured home community and, as a result, should be enjoined from <br />closing the park.1 <br />That being the case, we are appalled at the draft resolution that purports to find that the closure <br />statement “has been reviewed and appears to satisfy the requirements of Minn. Stat. § <br />327C.095.” <br />The Attorney General’s investigation of the sale and closure of the Park found: <br />•  The park owners and developers illegally withheld key terms of the proposed sale from <br />park residents.2 <br />•  The park owners and developers colluded to deny residents key benefits of the deal <br />between seller and buyer.3 <br />•  The park owners and developers unreasonably refused the residents’ exercise of their <br />statutory right of first refusal.4 <br />•  The park owners and developers should not be permitted to engage in concerted action <br />designed to circumvent park residents’ first refusal rights.5 <br />•  The park owner should be enjoined from closing the park.6 <br />Instead of blindly adopting findings requested by a developer which has violated the statute and <br />denied residents their right to purchase and preserve the Park and save their homes, the city <br />should closely review the findings of the Attorney General, and stand with and support the rights <br />of its own citizens. The City should accept the Attorney General’s findings and <br />recommendations and reject the Park closure as a violation of state law. At the very least, the <br />City should acknowledge that no finding that the closure statement complies with state law can <br />be made and that therefore the running of the nine months to closure must be held in abeyance <br />until the Court finally decides all of the issues in the pending lawsuit. <br /> <br />1 AG brief, page 1. <br />2 AG brief page 14 <br />3 AG brief page 15 <br />4 AG brief page 16 <br />5 AG brief page 18 <br />6 AG brief pages 1, 19.