The long-awaited decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council

Share

This morning, Judge Phillip D Bush signed an order dismissing the Petition for
a Writ of Mandamus in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council
 
 
 
I shall consider moving forward with an appeal to the judge's decision. There
is a possibility of getting a real lawyer to help with the appeal, and the
judge's decision is far from air tight.
 
 
Judge Bush asserted that Viking Stadium taxes to be imposed in Minneapolis are
"local resources," despite an assertion by the Stadium legislation that they
are not "local resources" within the meaning of the charter, and that least one
of the Charter provisions that requires a referendum does apply.
 
 
Judge Bush asserted that the legislature did "supersede" the charter, and
although I did cite constitutional issues, I did not allege an exercise of
legislative power exceeding the legislature's constitutional authority.
 
 
However, the decision did not specifically address my assertion that the
Stadium legislation's assertion that Viking Stadium taxes are deemed to not be
"local resources" is logically connected to a directive to the city council to
disregard any provision of the charter that requires that approval of the taxes
be referred to the voters. The interpretation that it was the intent of the
legislature to nullify, rather than merely circumvent charter provisions should
be rejected because it would involve an exercise of legislative power that
exceeds the legislature's constitutional authority. An analysis of
constitutional and statutory issues raised in my legal brief are relevant to
deciding whether it was the intend of the legislature to circumvent the
Minneapolis City Charter or to "supersede" it.
 
 
STANDING
 
 
It should also be noted that the Deputy City Attorney stated at the hearing
that the City, and not the legislature, over-rode the provisions of the City
Charter that require a referendum, and that the Stadium legislation gave the
city council permission to do so. It was the legality of the City Council
approval of the stadium legislation that was challenge by the Petition for a
Writ of Mandamus, not the legislature's action, per se. Judge Bush asserts that
a Petition for an extraordinary Writ directed at the legislature was another
remedy available to me. However, a lawsuit against the Minnesota Legislature
would be a remedy for an unlawful act of the legislature, not a remedy for an
unlawful action by the Minneapolis City Council.
 
 
Note: Doug Mann is a recently announced candidate for the Minneapolis School
Board, citywide, in 2014
 
 
Doug Mann for School Board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook community
http://facebook.com.mannforschoolboard
 
 
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

File type: application/pdf Order_Dismissing_Petition_for_Writ_of_Mandamus_(with_file_stamp).pdf 294.26kb

Share

Doug and I do not have quite the same read of Judge Bush's decision. I do not
think appealing is a valid option as I believe higher courts would affirm, but
that is Doug's decision, not mine.
 
What the decision said to me is that a writ of mandamus was the wrong action,
at least before suing the Legislature as this was the proper course of action
per Judge Bush (won't say I told you so, but that suit is what I would probably
have found a few bucks to contribute to; however, I did not really understand
the requirements to grant the writ, so who was I to argue about it? I just
crossed my fingers and hoped that others knew better; apparently they did
not.).
 
I think given the stadium funding problems for the State share, that such a
suit would force things off the back burner and be settled promptly with the
city on the hook for only whatever share did not violate the charter provision,
i.e., any judge would see the stadium legislation as unconstitutional. That
would happen (a settlement deal), or the whole process would start again.
 
The point that the Legislature screwed up and exceeded their constitutional
powers seemed to be accepted by Judge Bush and presumably would be right on up
from Ramsey County Court to the top, but I think it would be settled at the
bottom as I said.
 
I think I can scrape together $20 to hire a lawyer and sue the Leg. Who's with
me? Anyone know a good lawyer?
 
Bill Kahn
Southeast Minneapolis
 
On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:04 PM, <email obscured> wrote:
 
> ― Attachment links are at the end of this email ―
>
>
> This morning, Judge Phillip D Bush signed an order dismissing the Petition
for a Writ of Mandamus in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council
>
>
>
> I shall consider moving forward with an appeal to the judge's decision. There
is a possibility of getting a real lawyer to help with the appeal, and the
judge's decision is far from air tight.
>
>
> Judge Bush asserted that Viking Stadium taxes to be imposed in Minneapolis
are "local resources," despite an assertion by the Stadium legislation that
they are not "local resources" within the meaning of the charter, and that
least one of the Charter provisions that requires a referendum does apply.
>
>
> Judge Bush asserted that the legislature did "supersede" the charter, and
although I did cite constitutional issues, I did not allege an exercise of
legislative power exceeding the legislature's constitutional authority.
>
>
> However, the decision did not specifically address my assertion that the
Stadium legislation's assertion that Viking Stadium taxes are deemed to not be
"local resources" is logically connected to a directive to the city council to
disregard any provision of the charter that requires that approval of the taxes
be referred to the voters. The interpretation that it was the intent of the
legislature to nullify, rather than merely circumvent charter provisions should
be rejected because it would involve an exercise of legislative power that
exceeds the legislature's constitutional authority. An analysis of
constitutional and statutory issues raised in my legal brief are relevant to
deciding whether it was the intend of the legislature to circumvent the
Minneapolis City Charter or to "supersede" it.
>
>
> STANDING
>
>
> It should also be noted that the Deputy City Attorney stated at the hearing
that the City, and not the legislature, over-rode the provisions of the City
Charter that require a referendum, and that the Stadium legislation gave the
city council permission to do so. It was the legality of the City Council
approval of the stadium legislation that was challenge by the Petition for a
Writ of Mandamus, not the legislature's action, per se. Judge Bush asserts that
a Petition for an extraordinary Writ directed at the legislature was another
remedy available to me. However, a lawsuit against the Minnesota Legislature
would be a remedy for an unlawful act of the legislature, not a remedy for an
unlawful action by the Minneapolis City Council.
>
>
> Note: Doug Mann is a recently announced candidate for the Minneapolis School
Board, citywide, in 2014
>
>
> Doug Mann for School Board
> http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
>
>
> Doug Mann for School Board Facebook community
> http://facebook.com.mannforschoolboard
>
>
> -Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
> :
> * Attachment - File or photo with this post:
>
> Link:
http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/file​/fB9jtk5hTJOxA7JyxY200tfUKUR​-1go4​-2r6O150
> Name:
Order_Dismissing_Petition_for_Writ_of_Mandamus_(with_file_stamp).pdf Type/Size:
application/pdf, 294KB

Rest of post

>
>
> Doug Mann
> Folwell, Minneapolis

Share

I agree with Bill's reading of Judge Bush's decision. (the full
decision is available here -
http://blogs.mprnews.org​/stadium​-watch​/2013​/11​/13​/judge​-rejects​-legal​-challenge​-to​-vikings​-stadium​-funding​-in​-minneapolis​/)
The decision did indeed decisively reject the City's (and state
legislature's) claim that the sales taxes imposed for the Vikings
stadium are not "local resources" subject to the referendum requirement
of the City Charter. The case lost because 1) the state legislature
exercised its power under the state constitution to override the city
charter; and 2) a writ of mandamus was not the ONLY adequate remedy
available which is required for mandamus which is considered an
extraordinary remedy. It was not the only legal remedy because a
lawsuit could have been filed against the state challenging the
constitutionality of the legislation, and the decision seems to apply
that the lawsuit could have been based on grounds other than mandamus.
Although not mentioned in the decision, the judge likely considered that
are other less extraordinary remedies than mandamus that are more
fitting such as a request for declaratory judgment and/or an injunction
to stop funding of the stadium. In summary, the lawsuit was directed
against the wrong party (the city rather than the state) and requested
the wrong remedy. I again agree with Bill that an appeal would be a
fruitless exercise, and the better avenue would be to pursue a lawsuit
in Ramsey County against the state (although time seems to be rapidly
running out). While recognizing Doug's valiant effort, it also might be
informative to realize that this is the sort of complex endeavor that
should have been handled by an attorney with specific expertise in the
area of state and municipal governance. We did obtain legal analysis
from a qualified attorney (which Doug partially used in his lawsuit) but
unfortunately the attorney fees for such a lawsuit would not have been
covered by a smattering of Bill's proposed $20 donations. The figure
would be well into the five figures, and the resources, organization,
and will were not present to raise those funds. I don't blame anyone,
but believe it was a diversion to promote the idea that this writ of
mandamus against the City was some sort of magic bullet.
 
Jordan S. Kushner
Golden Valley
 
On 11/13/2013 2:28 PM, <email obscured> wrote:
> Doug and I do not have quite the same read of Judge Bush's decision. I do not
think appealing is a valid option as I believe higher courts would affirm, but
that is Doug's decision, not mine.
>
> What the decision said to me is that a writ of mandamus was the wrong action,
at least before suing the Legislature as this was the proper course of action
per Judge Bush (won't say I told you so, but that suit is what I would probably
have found a few bucks to contribute to; however, I did not really understand
the requirements to grant the writ, so who was I to argue about it? I just
crossed my fingers and hoped that others knew better; apparently they did
not.).
>
> I think given the stadium funding problems for the State share, that such a
suit would force things off the back burner and be settled promptly with the
city on the hook for only whatever share did not violate the charter provision,
i.e., any judge would see the stadium legislation as unconstitutional. That
would happen (a settlement deal), or the whole process would start again.
>
> The point that the Legislature screwed up and exceeded their constitutional
powers seemed to be accepted by Judge Bush and presumably would be right on up
from Ramsey County Court to the top, but I think it would be settled at the
bottom as I said.
>
> I think I can scrape together $20 to hire a lawyer and sue the Leg. Who's
with me? Anyone know a good lawyer?
>
> Bill Kahn
> Southeast Minneapolis
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:04 PM, <email obscured> wrote:
>
>> ― Attachment links are at the end of this email ―
>>
>>
>> This morning, Judge Phillip D Bush signed an order dismissing the Petition
for a Writ of Mandamus in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council
>>
>>
>>
>> I shall consider moving forward with an appeal to the judge's decision.
There is a possibility of getting a real lawyer to help with the appeal, and
the judge's decision is far from air tight.
>>
>>
>> Judge Bush asserted that Viking Stadium taxes to be imposed in Minneapolis
are "local resources," despite an assertion by the Stadium legislation that
they are not "local resources" within the meaning of the charter, and that
least one of the Charter provisions that requires a referendum does apply.
>>
>>
>> Judge Bush asserted that the legislature did "supersede" the charter, and
although I did cite constitutional issues, I did not allege an exercise of
legislative power exceeding the legislature's constitutional authority.
>>
>>
>> However, the decision did not specifically address my assertion that the
Stadium legislation's assertion that Viking Stadium taxes are deemed to not be
"local resources" is logically connected to a directive to the city council to
disregard any provision of the charter that requires that approval of the taxes
be referred to the voters. The interpretation that it was the intent of the
legislature to nullify, rather than merely circumvent charter provisions should
be rejected because it would involve an exercise of legislative power that
exceeds the legislature's constitutional authority. An analysis of
constitutional and statutory issues raised in my legal brief are relevant to
deciding whether it was the intend of the legislature to circumvent the
Minneapolis City Charter or to "supersede" it.
>>
>>
>> STANDING
>>
>>
>> It should also be noted that the Deputy City Attorney stated at the hearing
that the City, and not the legislature, over-rode the provisions of the City
Charter that require a referendum, and that the Stadium legislation gave the
city council permission to do so. It was the legality of the City Council
approval of the stadium legislation that was challenge by the Petition for a
Writ of Mandamus, not the legislature's action, per se. Judge Bush asserts that
a Petition for an extraordinary Writ directed at the legislature was another
remedy available to me. However, a lawsuit against the Minnesota Legislature
would be a remedy for an unlawful act of the legislature, not a remedy for an
unlawful action by the Minneapolis City Council.
>>
>>
>> Note: Doug Mann is a recently announced candidate for the Minneapolis School
Board, citywide, in 2014
>>
>>
>> Doug Mann for School Board
>> http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> Doug Mann for School Board Facebook community
>> http://facebook.com.mannforschoolboard
>>
>>
>> -Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
>> :
>> * Attachment - File or photo with this post:
>>
>> Link:
http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/file​/fB9jtk5hTJOxA7JyxY200tfUKUR​-1go4​-2r6O150
>> Name:
Order_Dismissing_Petition_for_Writ_of_Mandamus_(with_file_stamp).pdf Type/Size:
application/pdf, 294KB
>>
>>
>> Doug Mann
>> Folwell, Minneapolis
> Bill Kahn
> www.lastminneapolismayor.org, Minneapolis, MN
> About/contact Bill Kahn: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/billkahn
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/1gCwmONDA4CYnfVGn5xMrA
>
>
> *** Give to the Max Day - Thursday, Nov 14
> *** Support Your Forum, Strengthen Your Community
> *** Schedule your donation now: http://e-democracy.org/giveedem
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no
quotes)

Rest of post

> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>

Share

Jordan Kushner writes
 
The decision did indeed decisively reject the City's (and state legislature's)
claim that the sales taxes imposed for the Vikings stadium are not "local
resources" subject to the referendum requirement of the City Charter. The case
lost because 1) the state legislature exercised its power under the state
constitution to override the city charter; and 2) a writ of mandamus was not
the ONLY adequate remedy available which is required for mandamus which is
considered an extraordinary remedy.
 
Doug Mann replies:
 
The Judge ruled that the Charter Provisions that require a referendum do apply
to approval of the Stadium legislation by the City. Local tax revenues to be
used for the stadium are indeed "city resources."
 
Exactly what power under the Minnesota constitution did the legislature
exercise to pre-empt the city charter? Not by repealing the charter, because,
as Judge Bush himself noted, that didn't happen. The Minnesota Constitution
authorizes the Legislature to pass general laws that supersede or preempt local
laws with like subject matter. That didn't happen either. Yet Judge Bush
asserted the the legislature passed special legislation that superseded or
preempted local law in this case. As I pointed out in my legal memoranda, the
Minnesota constitution grants the Legislature no power to "supersede" or
preempt local law except by enactment of general law. A local law may be
repealed by special legislation, but not otherwise amended or abrogated.
 
Does Judge Bush's decision actually contain a poison pill for an appellate
Court? Checks on the authority of the legislature over local governments in the
Minnesota constitution go out the window when it comes exercising power in
favor of stadium developers and other developers. Is that not worth
challenging?
 
Comments by the Honorable Phillip D. Bush from the bench on August 20
foreshadowed his decision. He dismissed the Deputy City Attorney's argument
that the Charter provisions did not apply. He suggested, that because an
exercise of legislative power exceeding the legislature's constitutional
authority was alleged by the Petitioner, that the appropriate target of an
extraordinary writ was the legislature via a Petition for a writ of
prohibition, noting that his own standing to rule on the constitutionality of
the legislation would surely be challenged. Any lawsuit against the legislature
must originate in Ramsey District Court.
 
In the decision, Judge Bush states: ". . .Although many of his arguments
challenge the constitutional authority of the Legislature to do what it did
Plaintiff denies he is challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium
Legislation. One possible alternative remedy would have been to file a lawsuit
in Ramsey County district court that challenges the constitutionality of the
Stadium legislation. Plaintiff has chosen not to pursue that option. The third
requirement for obtaining a writ of mandamus is thus not satisfied."
 
The answer to the above line of reasoning is that I am challenging a violation
of the City Charter by the City Council, not any alleged pre-emption of the
City Charter by the Legislature. It is my contention that the Minnesota
Constitution does not grant the legislature authority to pre-empt a local law
by special legislation except by expressly repealing a local law. The only way
for the legislature to pre-empt a local law, other than by outright repeal, is
by enactment of general law with like subject matter. For the foregoing
reasons, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the stadium legislation
is not a remedy.
 
The key defect in the stadium legislation as far as the City Council's approval
of the legislation is concerned lies in the erroneous assertion that Charter
provisions that require a referendum do not apply to the stadium legislation.
 
The key defect in the judges ruling is the erroneous assertion that the
Legislature has the authority to preempt provisions of home rule charters by
enactment of special legislation. Outright repeal of local laws by special
legislature is a possibility, provided the law in question is not in harmony
with general laws and equitable principles. But there was no repeal in this
case. The legislature has the authority to supersede or preempt local laws by
enactment of general laws with like subject matter.
 
The stadium legislation's directive to the City Council to disregard any
charter provisions that require a referendum, and to approve the legislation on
its own authority is based on the erroneous view that the Charter provisions do
not apply, and not on the non-existent authority of the legislature to preempt
home rule charter provisions by enactment of special legislation.
 
I want to meet with anyone interested in moving forward with an appeal, and
pass a hat, within the next week. Pledges of money rather actual money are fine
before a final decision is made to file an appeal. An appeal must be filed
within 30 days.
 
The cost of filing an appeal is $450 at both the appellate and Supreme Court,
potentially $900.00 in all for filing fees, unless we can skip the appellate
court. Would Cam Gordon, Betsy Hodges, and other former stadium opponents be
willing to kick in?
 
And by the way, I am a candidate for Minneapolis School Board, citywide in
2014, and seeking others to join me as part of a slate.
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann for School Board (blogspot)
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Share

I of course wish Doug Mann success, but wish that before convincing
people to devote their money, time and energy to his appeal, he will
make a more objective assessment of the potential weaknesses of his
approach. The argument that the state's legislation is unconstitutional
seems strong - but it is precisely because the authority is coming from
the state legislature that it is that body probably needs to be sued;
and furthermore there are more effective actions than mandamus.
 
On a related topic, it is worth noting that Strib article by Eric Roper
for tomorrow (at least the early version) is sharp in its take on Judge
Bush's, noting it determined the "Vikings stadium deal would have
triggered a Minneapolis
<http://www.startribune.com​/topics​/places​/minneapolis​.html> charter
requirement to hold a public vote, contradicting repeated statements
from Mayor R.T. Rybak
<http://www.startribune.com​/topics​/people​/r​-t​-rybak​.html> and his city
attorney when they were selling the plan in 2012."
http://www.startribune.com​/local​/minneapolis​/231835871​.html
<http://www.startribune.com​/local​/minneapolis​/231835871​.html> The
article then points out that the City Attorney Susan Segal's "opinion
was a factor in securing the council’s decisive swing vote, Sandy Colvin
Roy, and six members of the slim majority that supported the deal stated
in writing that they would not approve anything that violated the city’s
charter." In other words, the City Council's approval of the stadium
deal (which was necessary for it to be implemented) was based on false
legal advice. If one looks at how strongly Judge Bush refutes the City
Attorney's position, it is fair to conclude that the stadium was secured
through fraudulent legal advice. At the least, an honest legal opinion
would have pointed out the conclusion advanced was highly debatable.
But the City Attorney abandoned any professional responsibility in favor
of loyalty to Rybak's political goals. the new mayor and city council
members need to be replacing the City Attorney in order to protect the
credibility and integrity of that office.
 
As for Rybak, the Strib article also aptly points out that "Following
one of the initial hearings on the Vikings issue in 2012, Rybak said,
'We are going to have a referendum in a couple of years when I stand for
re-election.' He announced that December that he would not seek another
term, however." He not only secured fraudulent legal advice to secure
the stadium but was also fraudulent in his assumption of political
responsibility. What a slime!
 
Jordan S. Kushner
Golden Valley
 
On 11/13/2013 9:15 PM, Doug Mann wrote:
> Jordan Kushner writes
>
> The decision did indeed decisively reject the City's (and state
legislature's) claim that the sales taxes imposed for the Vikings stadium are
not "local resources" subject to the referendum requirement of the City
Charter. The case lost because 1) the state legislature exercised its power
under the state constitution to override the city charter; and 2) a writ of
mandamus was not the ONLY adequate remedy available which is required for
mandamus which is considered an extraordinary remedy.
>
> Doug Mann replies:
>
> The Judge ruled that the Charter Provisions that require a referendum do
apply to approval of the Stadium legislation by the City. Local tax revenues to
be used for the stadium are indeed "city resources."
>
> Exactly what power under the Minnesota constitution did the legislature
exercise to pre-empt the city charter? Not by repealing the charter, because,
as Judge Bush himself noted, that didn't happen. The Minnesota Constitution
authorizes the Legislature to pass general laws that supersede or preempt local
laws with like subject matter. That didn't happen either. Yet Judge Bush
asserted the the legislature passed special legislation that superseded or
preempted local law in this case. As I pointed out in my legal memoranda, the
Minnesota constitution grants the Legislature no power to "supersede" or
preempt local law except by enactment of general law. A local law may be
repealed by special legislation, but not otherwise amended or abrogated.
>
> Does Judge Bush's decision actually contain a poison pill for an appellate
Court? Checks on the authority of the legislature over local governments in the
Minnesota constitution go out the window when it comes exercising power in
favor of stadium developers and other developers. Is that not worth
challenging?
>
> Comments by the Honorable Phillip D. Bush from the bench on August 20
foreshadowed his decision. He dismissed the Deputy City Attorney's argument
that the Charter provisions did not apply. He suggested, that because an
exercise of legislative power exceeding the legislature's constitutional
authority was alleged by the Petitioner, that the appropriate target of an
extraordinary writ was the legislature via a Petition for a writ of
prohibition, noting that his own standing to rule on the constitutionality of
the legislation would surely be challenged. Any lawsuit against the legislature
must originate in Ramsey District Court.
>
> In the decision, Judge Bush states: ". . .Although many of his arguments
challenge the constitutional authority of the Legislature to do what it did
Plaintiff denies he is challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium
Legislation. One possible alternative remedy would have been to file a lawsuit
in Ramsey County district court that challenges the constitutionality of the
Stadium legislation. Plaintiff has chosen not to pursue that option. The third
requirement for obtaining a writ of mandamus is thus not satisfied."
>
> The answer to the above line of reasoning is that I am challenging a
violation of the City Charter by the City Council, not any alleged pre-emption
of the City Charter by the Legislature. It is my contention that the Minnesota
Constitution does not grant the legislature authority to pre-empt a local law
by special legislation except by expressly repealing a local law. The only way
for the legislature to pre-empt a local law, other than by outright repeal, is
by enactment of general law with like subject matter. For the foregoing
reasons, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the stadium legislation
is not a remedy.
>
> The key defect in the stadium legislation as far as the City Council's
approval of the legislation is concerned lies in the erroneous assertion that
Charter provisions that require a referendum do not apply to the stadium
legislation.
>
> The key defect in the judges ruling is the erroneous assertion that the
Legislature has the authority to preempt provisions of home rule charters by
enactment of special legislation. Outright repeal of local laws by special
legislature is a possibility, provided the law in question is not in harmony
with general laws and equitable principles. But there was no repeal in this
case. The legislature has the authority to supersede or preempt local laws by
enactment of general laws with like subject matter.
>
> The stadium legislation's directive to the City Council to disregard any
charter provisions that require a referendum, and to approve the legislation on
its own authority is based on the erroneous view that the Charter provisions do
not apply, and not on the non-existent authority of the legislature to preempt
home rule charter provisions by enactment of special legislation.
>
> I want to meet with anyone interested in moving forward with an appeal, and
pass a hat, within the next week. Pledges of money rather actual money are fine
before a final decision is made to file an appeal. An appeal must be filed
within 30 days.
>
> The cost of filing an appeal is $450 at both the appellate and Supreme Court,
potentially $900.00 in all for filing fees, unless we can skip the appellate
court. Would Cam Gordon, Betsy Hodges, and other former stadium opponents be
willing to kick in?
>
> And by the way, I am a candidate for Minneapolis School Board, citywide in
2014, and seeking others to join me as part of a slate.
>
> Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
> http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
>
> Doug Mann for School Board (blogspot)
> http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
>
> -Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
> Doug Mann
> Folwell, Minneapolis
> About/contact Doug Mann: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/dougmann
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/662maBrBAIGZGO9e2p0Aq3
>
>
> *** Give to the Max Day - Thursday, Nov 14
> *** Support Your Forum, Strengthen Your Community
> *** Schedule your donation now: http://e-democracy.org/giveedem
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no
quotes)

Rest of post

> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>

Share

Look whos commenting on Eric Ropers piece:
 
> tscallon
> Nov 13, 13
> 5:57 pm
> I agree the issue is over. The judge really concurred that the state law
ended the need for a referendum. Please read the constitution of the United
States and State of Minnesota. We are the United States not the united
municipalities.

Rest of post

>
>
 
 
 
 
 
 
Always trying to put out the stadium fires, Tony, arent you? Thats not really
what the judge did, but he did suggest that a Ramsey County judge could nip
this Vikings stadium bud before it flowers; all Judge Bush did was toss out a
petition. You see, Tony, Doug made the case fairly well that state law did not
do override our charter constitutionally, so perhaps you should read these
documents as well as the decision.
 
Im going to investigate how we might raise the money we need to hire an
attorney to stop this thing and send it back to the Legislature for a redo; I
wont raise money for a mayoral campaign, but this seems like something that
needs it to do something besides make a point.
 
Let us stop this Vikings stadium process in its tracks.

Share

I'm in for $20.
 
@CRZ

Share

I also found this story
interesting:http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/231674281.html
 
Mayor Rybak made two particularly interesting statements during the rush to
give a billion dollars to Zygi.
 
One was that no referendum was needed, since his re-election campaign would be
just such a referendum. Well, that didn't happen, although he did lose his
job, along with boondoggle city council supporters Samuels, Hofstede, Tuthill
and Colvin Roy.
 
The second was even more interesting: that increasing the city's debt by a
9-figure amount (nearly a billion for Minneapolis alone, by the time we pay
interest, infrastructure, buy parking garages and take acres and acres of
downtown property off the tax rolls) would somehow SAVE us money. I never
could figure that one out. How does adding a billion dollars of debt save the
city money?
 
R.T.'s logic is that we would somehow gain control over the taxes now paying
for the Target Center and the Convention Center, even though it gobbles up the
city budget until 2046.
 
Well, it turns out that R.T.'s claim was a complete fiction, designed to
sugar-coat an otherwise unpalatable welfare for a New Jersey real estate
racketeer. It was a lie. We always had control of those taxes. Read the
linked Strib story.
 
The mayor thinks that "the last thing that this community needs is to dredge up
an old argument." Of course he does.
 
Somehow I think he is wrong again. This "old argument" can't actually die
until 2046. In fact, we won't even START paying for Zygi's Crystal Palace
until the Convention Center debt is paid off in 2020. So the argument can't
die, but it is actually likely to get bigger as the crushing debt becomes more
painful.
 
Block E was a fiasco accomplished with $39 million in public subsidy. The stink
from this one, according to my calculations, is more than 25 times as smelly.

Share

Jordan, what other more effective actions than mandamus? The issue we
disagree with JudgeBush on is whether the constitution invests thelocal
government with the method of approving special legislation, or if the
legislature can mandate that it be approved in a manner that is in violation of
the city charter. My lay reading of the constitution leads me to believe that
our argument should prevail.
 
I intend to assist Doug in pursuing this, and if my father was alive and still
practicing, there is not doubt he would be signing on to this.
 
Are there no attorneys in the area who are willing to do this without five
figure fees?
 
David Tilsen
612-281-8576 mobile
612-823-8169 land line
Sent from my iPad

Rest of post

 
On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:43 PM, "Jordan S. Kushner" <<email obscured>> wrote:
 
> I of course wish Doug Mann success, but wish that before convincing
> people to devote their money, time and energy to his appeal, he will
> make a more objective assessment of the potential weaknesses of his
> approach. The argument that the state's legislation is unconstitutional
> seems strong - but it is precisely because the authority is coming from
> the state legislature that it is that body probably needs to be sued;
> and furthermore there are more effective actions than mandamus.
>
> On a related topic, it is worth noting that Strib article by Eric Roper
> for tomorrow (at least the early version) is sharp in its take on Judge
> Bush's, noting it determined the "Vikings stadium deal would have
> triggered a Minneapolis
> <http://www.startribune.com​/topics​/places​/minneapolis​.html> charter
> requirement to hold a public vote, contradicting repeated statements
> from Mayor R.T. Rybak
> <http://www.startribune.com​/topics​/people​/r​-t​-rybak​.html> and his city
> attorney when they were selling the plan in 2012."
> http://www.startribune.com​/local​/minneapolis​/231835871​.html
> <http://www.startribune.com​/local​/minneapolis​/231835871​.html> The
> article then points out that the City Attorney Susan Segal's "opinion
> was a factor in securing the council’s decisive swing vote, Sandy Colvin
> Roy, and six members of the slim majority that supported the deal stated
> in writing that they would not approve anything that violated the city’s
> charter." In other words, the City Council's approval of the stadium
> deal (which was necessary for it to be implemented) was based on false
> legal advice. If one looks at how strongly Judge Bush refutes the City
> Attorney's position, it is fair to conclude that the stadium was secured
> through fraudulent legal advice. At the least, an honest legal opinion
> would have pointed out the conclusion advanced was highly debatable.
> But the City Attorney abandoned any professional responsibility in favor
> of loyalty to Rybak's political goals. the new mayor and city council
> members need to be replacing the City Attorney in order to protect the
> credibility and integrity of that office.
>
> As for Rybak, the Strib article also aptly points out that "Following
> one of the initial hearings on the Vikings issue in 2012, Rybak said,
> 'We are going to have a referendum in a couple of years when I stand for
> re-election.' He announced that December that he would not seek another
> term, however." He not only secured fraudulent legal advice to secure
> the stadium but was also fraudulent in his assumption of political
> responsibility. What a slime!
>
> Jordan S. Kushner
> Golden Valley
>
> On 11/13/2013 9:15 PM, Doug Mann wrote:
>> Jordan Kushner writes
>>
>> The decision did indeed decisively reject the City's (and state
legislature's) claim that the sales taxes imposed for the Vikings stadium are
not "local resources" subject to the referendum requirement of the City
Charter. The case lost because 1) the state legislature exercised its power
under the state constitution to override the city charter; and 2) a writ of
mandamus was not the ONLY adequate remedy available which is required for
mandamus which is considered an extraordinary remedy.
>>
>> Doug Mann replies:
>>
>> The Judge ruled that the Charter Provisions that require a referendum do
apply to approval of the Stadium legislation by the City. Local tax revenues to
be used for the stadium are indeed "city resources."
>>
>> Exactly what power under the Minnesota constitution did the legislature
exercise to pre-empt the city charter? Not by repealing the charter, because,
as Judge Bush himself noted, that didn't happen. The Minnesota Constitution
authorizes the Legislature to pass general laws that supersede or preempt local
laws with like subject matter. That didn't happen either. Yet Judge Bush
asserted the the legislature passed special legislation that superseded or
preempted local law in this case. As I pointed out in my legal memoranda, the
Minnesota constitution grants the Legislature no power to "supersede" or
preempt local law except by enactment of general law. A local law may be
repealed by special legislation, but not otherwise amended or abrogated.
>>
>> Does Judge Bush's decision actually contain a poison pill for an appellate
Court? Checks on the authority of the legislature over local governments in the
Minnesota constitution go out the window when it comes exercising power in
favor of stadium developers and other developers. Is that not worth
challenging?
>>
>> Comments by the Honorable Phillip D. Bush from the bench on August 20
foreshadowed his decision. He dismissed the Deputy City Attorney's argument
that the Charter provisions did not apply. He suggested, that because an
exercise of legislative power exceeding the legislature's constitutional
authority was alleged by the Petitioner, that the appropriate target of an
extraordinary writ was the legislature via a Petition for a writ of
prohibition, noting that his own standing to rule on the constitutionality of
the legislation would surely be challenged. Any lawsuit against the legislature
must originate in Ramsey District Court.
>>
>> In the decision, Judge Bush states: ". . .Although many of his arguments
challenge the constitutional authority of the Legislature to do what it did
Plaintiff denies he is challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium
Legislation. One possible alternative remedy would have been to file a lawsuit
in Ramsey County district court that challenges the constitutionality of the
Stadium legislation. Plaintiff has chosen not to pursue that option. The third
requirement for obtaining a writ of mandamus is thus not satisfied."
>>
>> The answer to the above line of reasoning is that I am challenging a
violation of the City Charter by the City Council, not any alleged pre-emption
of the City Charter by the Legislature. It is my contention that the Minnesota
Constitution does not grant the legislature authority to pre-empt a local law
by special legislation except by expressly repealing a local law. The only way
for the legislature to pre-empt a local law, other than by outright repeal, is
by enactment of general law with like subject matter. For the foregoing
reasons, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the stadium legislation
is not a remedy.
>>
>> The key defect in the stadium legislation as far as the City Council's
approval of the legislation is concerned lies in the erroneous assertion that
Charter provisions that require a referendum do not apply to the stadium
legislation.
>>
>> The key defect in the judges ruling is the erroneous assertion that the
Legislature has the authority to preempt provisions of home rule charters by
enactment of special legislation. Outright repeal of local laws by special
legislature is a possibility, provided the law in question is not in harmony
with general laws and equitable principles. But there was no repeal in this
case. The legislature has the authority to supersede or preempt local laws by
enactment of general laws with like subject matter.
>>
>> The stadium legislation's directive to the City Council to disregard any
charter provisions that require a referendum, and to approve the legislation on
its own authority is based on the erroneous view that the Charter provisions do
not apply, and not on the non-existent authority of the legislature to preempt
home rule charter provisions by enactment of special legislation.
>>
>> I want to meet with anyone interested in moving forward with an appeal, and
pass a hat, within the next week. Pledges of money rather actual money are fine
before a final decision is made to file an appeal. An appeal must be filed
within 30 days.
>>
>> The cost of filing an appeal is $450 at both the appellate and Supreme
Court, potentially $900.00 in all for filing fees, unless we can skip the
appellate court. Would Cam Gordon, Betsy Hodges, and other former stadium
opponents be willing to kick in?
>>
>> And by the way, I am a candidate for Minneapolis School Board, citywide in
2014, and seeking others to join me as part of a slate.
>>
>> Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
>> http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
>>
>> Doug Mann for School Board (blogspot)
>> http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
>>
>> -Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
>> Doug Mann
>> Folwell, Minneapolis
>> About/contact Doug Mann: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/dougmann
>>
>> View full topic or share:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/662maBrBAIGZGO9e2p0Aq3
>>
>>
>> *** Give to the Max Day - Thursday, Nov 14
>> *** Support Your Forum, Strengthen Your Community
>> *** Schedule your donation now: http://e-democracy.org/giveedem
>>
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
>> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no
quotes)
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>>
>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>
>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>
>
>
> Jordan Kushner
> Golden Valley, Golden Valley
> About/contact Jordan Kushner: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/jordankushner
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/1g48PRSuzgX3QrqwgCmEWP
>
>
> *** Give to the Max Day - Thursday, Nov 14
> *** Support Your Forum, Strengthen Your Community
> *** Schedule your donation now: http://e-democracy.org/giveedem
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no quotes)
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

Share

Reading this thread, I am so glad that 40 years ago when a repulsive old mentor
offered to fund me through law school, I stood at the crossroads and took the
other road. I supposedly have a legal mind, but that must be wrong, because I
go back and forth like a weathervane.
I have arranged a meeting on Sunday, Nov. 17 at the East Lake St. Library
(conference room) from 3 to 5 pm. This is a meeting under the auspices of the
Minneapolis Farmer Labor Association, a group that strongly supported Doug's
petition and also, through the Southside Pride endorsement and a few members'
personal support, his bid for Mayor. At least half of this meeting (an hour in
other words) will be devoted to strategizing "what next" for the Stadium deal
fight. (The other half will be about the FLA's initial plans for the 2014
elections. The entire meeting is open to the public.)
I know Dave will be hard-pressed to make this meeting, but I hope he will be
able to. I want to specifically invite Jordan, Bill, Christopher, and any
others who are following this fascinating but tortuous debate to attend the
meeting and weigh in. The more voices we hear, the more likely we are to make
the right decision.

Share

I've read the decision memo, and think filing a new lawsuit in Saint Paul is
probably the best option. I'll plan on coming Sunday, and suggest that a new
lawsuit be one of the options. Since it's open to the public, I'll see who
else might be interested in coming. As for $20, I'll have to think about it.

Rest of post

--
 
BobAgain
"candidate-journalist"; candidate for: TBD
Writer-wing Republican
East Harriet Farmstead

Share

I forgot to mention Charley! I also specifically invite you, if you can make
it. The agenda for this meeting will put the stadium deal strategy discussion
first, so if people are only interested in that and not in the FLA or its other
doings, they can leave around 4 pm with the full blessing of the chair (that
would be me, most likely.) Since this has been the major undertaking of our
nascent little organization so far, I think it's OK to make this a dual purpose
meeting.
Debs

Share

The decision by the Honorable Phillip D. Bush was the best adverse
decision we could have hoped for. My standing to sue the City Council by virtue
of my status as a citizen of Minneapolis was affirmed. I have discussed the
decision with David Tilsen and Linda Mann. I think that David and I are pretty
close to agreement on the legal issues upon which we should base an appeal.
Tilsen brought to my attention the case-winning issue. More about that after
the next two paragraphs.
 
The decision affirmed the applicability of the Minneapolis City Charter
provisions that require a referendum. The judge cited case law at several
points in his analysis. This part of the decision cannot be easily overturned
on appeal.
 
Judge Bush, however, ruled that the Minneapolis City Council did not fail
to uphold the City Charter by approving the Stadium legislation because of
provisions of the same Stadium legislation preempted charter provisions that
require a referendum, based on the supremacy of state law over local law. State
law preempts local law. However, no case law was cited to back this assertion.
 
The fatal flaw in Bush's preemption argument is that the Stadium legislation
stipulates that it becomes effective upon its ratification by the Minneapolis
City Council. The special law that allegedly preempted local charter provisions
that require voter approval did not take effect until after ratification of the
same special law by the City Council. The Charter Provisions that required
voter approval of the special legislation were in force at the time of
ratification, and the special legislation that allegedly preempted those
charter provisions were not in effect. A not-yet effective law does not trump
one that is already in force.
 
645.21 PRESUMPTION AGAINST RETROACTIVE EFFECT
No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and
manifestly so intended by the legislature.
 
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
 
Bush's reading of the intent of legislature to preempt the charter is
based on reading provisions of the special legislation that permit the City
Council to approve the special legislation and disregard any charter provisions
that require a referendum in isolation from provisions of the legislation state
that the Charter provisions that require a referendum do not apply. By voiding
the latter provision of the legislation, the implication of disregarding City
Charter provisions that require voter approval radically charges from an action
by the city council that does not conflict with the City Charter, to an action
that allegedly preempts the Minneapolis City Charter. This is a situation where
the court can find that ". . .valid provisions of the law are so essentially
and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the void provisions that
the court cannot presume the legislature would have enacted the remaining valid
provisions without the void one. . ." See below, MN Statutes, chapter 645
section 20.
 
645.20 CONSTRUCTION OF SEVERABLE PROVISIONS
Unless there is a provision in the law that the provisions shall not be
severable, the provisions of all laws shall be severable. If any provision of a
law is found to be unconstitutional and void, the remaining provisions of the
law shall remain valid, unless the court finds the valid provisions of the law
are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the
void provisions that the court cannot presume the legislature would have
enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or unless the
court finds the remaining valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and
are incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent.
 
PRESUMPTIONS IN ASCERTAINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT
 
Per Minnesota Statute chapter 645 section 17, the Courts may be guided by the
presumption that ". . . the legislation does not intend to violate the
Constitution of the United States or of this state." Considered in isolation
from the provision of the special legislation voided by Bush's decision,
provisions of the special legislation that give the Minneapolis City Council
permission to approve the special legislation and not refer it to the voters
would involve an exercise of legislative power in excess of the legislatures
constitutional authority. Therefore, those provisions should be considered
contrary to legislative intent, and the lawful method of approving stadium
taxes set forth in the Minneapolis City Charter should be followed.
 
"Minnesota Statutes Chapter 645 section 17 Presumptions in ascertaining
legislative intent
 
"In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by
the following presumptions:
 
1) the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of
execution, or unreasonable
 
2) the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain
 
3) the legislation does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United
States or of this state.
 
4) when a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the
legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same
construction to be placed upon such language; and
 
5) the legislature intends to favor the public interest as against any private
interest.
 
WAS THERE ANOTHER LEGAL OPTION?
 
Although the Petition for a writ of mandamus alleged the exercise of
legislative power in excess of the Legislature's Constitutional Authority, and
the appropriate venue for a Lawsuit against the legislature is Ramsey District
Court, the Petition is seeking a remedy for an illegal action of the City
Council. The petitioner is seeking to uphold the City Charter. The Petition's
assertion of an exercise of legislative power in excess of the Legislature's
Constitutional Authority was an error based on acceptance of assertions by the
City Attorney that the Stadium Legislation "preempted" the City Charter. It is
now the opinion of the Petitioner that he has no cause of action against the
Legislature, as there was no repeal or preemption of the Minneapolis City
Charter by the Legislature. The City Council approved the Stadium Legislation
without the legal authority to do so.
 
Appeal of the decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council will the first item
on the agenda of the next Minneapolis Farmer Labor Association membership
meeting. Plans for the 2014 elections will also be on the agenda.
 
November 17, 2013
3:00 PM to 5:00
East Lake Library, 2727 E. Lake St., Minneapolis MN 55406
https://www.facebook.com​/events​/199967153521358​/
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Share

Doug writes: "Tilsen brought to my attention the case-winning issue. . . . The
fatal flaw in Bush's preemption argument is that the Stadium legislation
stipulates that it becomes effective upon its ratification by the Minneapolis
City Council. The special law that allegedly preempted local charter provisions
that require voter approval did not take effect until after ratification of the
same special law by the City Council. The Charter Provisions that required
voter approval of the special legislation were in force at the time of
ratification, and the special legislation that allegedly preempted those
charter provisions were not in effect. A not-yet effective law does not trump
one that is already in force."
 
Doug, did you brief this specific argument in support of your mandamus
petition? If not, the Court of Appeals might consider it waived.

Share

Raising new arguments on appeal is usually not allowed. In memoranda supporting
the Petition I do not recall making an argument about a law not yet in effect
trumping a law that is in effect. (But that very argument might be in the brief
of Cam Gordon's lawyer I submitted as part of the record) So that might be
considered a waived argument by the appellate court, or maybe not.
 
I did argue the following point: The legislature has the authority to enact
general legislation with like subject matter that can modify, repeal in part or
whole, or abrogate a local law, but a local law, unless repealed outright, can
not be preempted by a special law. I cited case law to support that contention.
 
The other points raised in connection with presumptions about judicial
determination of legislative intent were raised in memoranda in support the
Petition, but not addressed in the decision.
 
So even if the "case-winning argument" is considered waived by the Appellate
Court, I think we are still in pretty good shape for an appeal.
 
Appeal of the decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council will the first item
on the agenda of the next Minneapolis Farmer Labor Association membership
meeting. Plans for the 2014 elections will also be on the agenda.
 
November 17, 2013
3:00 PM to 5:00
East Lake Library, 2727 E. Lake St., Minneapolis MN 55406
https://www.facebook.com​/events​/199967153521358​/
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Share

In addition to and separate from any appeal Doug may chose to make, what are
the possible options for the new city council and mayor?
 
As for the fees and costs of legal advice, how about a Kickstarter campaign?
What creative rewards can folks think of for contributions?
 
And also, Aren't there a lot of buildings of historic interest likely to be
torn down for the project? How many of us went as school kids on a tour of the
Minneapolis Star or was it the Trib or both then? With the giant presses
becoming obsolete, and the rest of the building we have the ideal location for
a history of labor building.
 
We are tearing down our city in favor of giant projects of little or no
aesthetic value. Are we already in a position that we can advertise
"Minneapolis - the city that looks just like everywhere else"?
 
Susan Kolstad
Seward

Share

I encourage the Kickstarter campaign.
 
Mark Fox
Audubon Park, NE Mpls

Share

Anyone in favor of home rule should be offended by this decision. It states
that the Legislature can pass a special law targeting any part of a city
charter it doesn't like. It can do this through pre-emption - making a law that
addresses the same issue as the charter and, being the higher body, replacing
parts of the charter that the people have voted on.
 
Obviously, this could happen to any charter provision regardless of content.
Even if you believe the people of Minneapolis should be individually held up at
gun point to pay for any whim of any sports team owner, your favorite charter
provision could be next.

Share

I think it was in either the recent agenda/minutes of the Historic
Preservation commission or the City Planning Commission that I read about
the "mitigation" steps the new owners of the Star Tribune building[s] have
to take as they are permitted to proceed to demolition.
 
Because there is a valuable Minneapolis history involved in the paper's
existence actually within the boundaries of downtown, the two remedies that
must be taken as they go about demolition are: 1) take the exterior
decorative "medallions" on the building, and save them for embedding, with
brass plaques that name the papers, in the pavement on that site when or
after the stadium-related project goes up, and 2) write an article for some
history publication about the significance of the Star and Tribune
newspapers in Minneapolis--needn't be a book, just an article somewhere
will do. That's standard "mitigation" for demolition of important historic
resources in Minneapolis.
 
I agree with Susan, that there is a lot to be said for retaining our sense
of place in history and what will be lost as we demolish this, that, and
the other structure not just in, but around downtown. The run-of-the-mill
developer, and the Wilfs are just run-of-the-mill in my book, prefers to
tear down, rather than go to the trouble and expense of rehabbing stuff for
continued use or re-use. I remind everyone that the Metrodome has nothing
strucutrally or functionally wrong with it; it stimply doesn't generate the
level of profits the Wilfs demand from their Vikings venture.
 
Among developers Hillcrest Development is a big exception locally, and I'm
really glad that our NE neighbors chose Hillcrest to redo the former School
District building--the huge former Westinghouse light bulb factory on
Broadway St. NE. They do fabulous work (I speak as an admirer, not a
relative or a stockholder). Take a look at what Hillcrest did to the
massive 1920s Northwestern Terminal warehouses on Stinson Blvd, that now
house--with all the requisite 21st-century high-tech bells and
whistles--CenturyLink and UCare.
 
Connie Sullivan
Como, just south of the old Northwestern Terminal in East Minneapolis

Rest of post

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Susan Horns Kolstad <

Share

Amplification of state vs. city powers.
 
http://celdf.org​/downloads​/Minnesota​%20Home​%20Rule​.pdf

Share

When I took political science,I was surprised to learn that constitutionally,
cities are not protected under the powers clause. States are the owners of
powers not specificied in the constitution. Which means anything voters decide
on a city level is subject to state override. For political purposes, they may
make nice talk about it,but sadly, our charter decisions are all reversible. I
don't like the taxes I pay for these Wilfare projects, but I do know the
legislature can dictate them anytime it likes. Which also means that the state
outside city limits can use its power to say "you'll do this and pay for it".
I think a state constitutional provision, which most of the state might fight,
would be required to truly make local affairs the choice of local voters.
Oddly, none of our wealthy suburbs want that either, I guess. Could be a sign
they know they have enough control to torpedo any legislature idea they don't
like.

Share

Jordan Kushner characterizes the opinion of City Attorney Susan Segal as
"fraudulent." I'm not sure the evidence supports that charge, but there were
some interesting timing coincidences that did seem to call for additional
investigation.
 
At the time Ms. Segal was delivering her now judicially rejected "City
resources" interpretations to legislative committees -- she didn't render a
written opinion until May 21, 2012, three days before the Council's Committee
of the Whole took its determinative vote -- she was reappointed to her position
by Mayor Rybak.
 
The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on the appointment on March
5, 2012. I was the only person who testified either for or against Ms. Segal. I
was opposed.
 
The focus of my comments were Ms. Segal's opinions that did not comport with a
third-grader's understanding of the English language contained in the CRA
ordinance.
 
The ordinance required the Chief of Police's disciplinary decisions in
CRA-sustained cases to be "based on the adjudicated facts as determined by the
Civilian Review Authority board." Chief Tim Dolan was regularly giving as a
reason for not issuing discipline in such cases his "disagreement with the
facts as determined by the Civilian Review Authority board."
 
Ms. Segal said the Chief's reasons were consistent with the ordinance. Since
that time, I have had a standing challenge to the City Attorney's office to
find one lawyer in the city of Minneapolis who does not work in the City
Attorney's office but who agrees with that absurd position. Ms. Segal's deputy,
Peter Ginder, asked if his brother would count. I said fine, and I'm still
awaiting his brother's telephone call. Even attorneys in her own office
swallowed hard at her inability to understand the English language.
 
The chair of the Ways and Means Committee that held the public hearing on Ms.
Segal's reappointment, of course, was our Mayor-elect Betsy Hodges. As I was
testifying about Ms. Segal's ridiculous interpretation of the City ordinance,
Ms. Hodges interrupted me twice and instructed me to keep my comments to Ms.
Segal's qualifications.
 
Stupid old me. I mistakenly thought that the City Attorney's irrational
interpretations of City ordinances, which she would then deliver to City
Council committees, went precisely to her qualifications.
 
I wouldn't hold my breath about the new Mayor replacing Ms. Segal.
 
Finally, what should have been investigated was what communications Mayor Rybak
had with Ms. Segal about her interpretation of "City resources" before he
nominated her to be reappointed. These events were so close in time that either
our intrepid local reporters or the six Council members who oppposed the
stadium legislation should have asked these questions.
 
To the detriment of our city, no one did.
 
Chuck Turchick
Phillips

Share

Addendum: The Mayor's reappoinment request, dated February 15, 2012 -- in which
he also nominated for reappointment four other department heads -- closed with
the following: "I look forward to a thorough and expeditious appointment
process."
 
Expeditious it was; thorough it was not.
 
Chuck Turchick
Phillips

Share

Here's a summary of the issues in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council
 
The judge ruled in my favor on the following issues:
 
1) The charter provisions that require a referendum do apply to approval of
Chapter 3 of the Viking Stadium Legislation that imposes sales taxes on
Minneapolis
 
2) Local sales taxes to be imposed via Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation are
local resources within the meaning of the Minneapolis Charter.
 
3) The Charter provisions that require a referendum were not repealed by the
Stadium Legislation,
 
4) The charter provisions that require a referendum were not explicitly
preempted by the Stadium Law as written
 
5) The Petitioner has standing to sue the City Council by virtue of his status
as a citizen with an interest in upholding the charter provision.
 
Petitioner concurs with the District Court ruling on the above issues.
 
The judge dismissed the Mandamus Petition on two issues:
 
1) The judge asserted that provisions of the Stadium legislation that directed
the City Council to approve the Stadium legislation and to disregard Charter
provisions that require a referendum represent an inferred preemption of the
charter because it can be presumed that the Legislature intended to preempt the
Charter provisions. Thus the City Council was not obligated to refer approval
of the local stadium taxes to the voters
 
2) The Petitioner had another legal remedy: A lawsuit against the Legislature
challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium Legislation.
 
The Petitioner disagrees with the District Court decision to dismiss the
Mandamus Petition for the following reasons
 
1) It may be presumed that the Legislature intended to do what it did and not
what it didn't do, and that the Legislature did not intend to exercise
legislative power that exceeds its constitutional authority.
 
a) Both Petitioner and Respondent asserted that the legislation as written
did not implicate any charter provisions.
 
b) The directive to the city council to approve the Stadium Legislation and
to disregard charter provisions that require a referendum were essentially and
inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon the provision of the
Legislation that stated that the Charter restriction do not apply, that it
cannot be presumed that the Legislature would have enacted the former
provisions without enacting the latter.
 
Minnesota Statutes, section 645.20 Construction of Severable Provisions states,
in part:
 
". . .If any provision of a law is found to be unconstitutional and void, the
remaining provisions of the law shall remain valid, unless the court finds the
valid provisions of the law are so essentially and inseparably connected with,
and so dependent upon the void provisions that the court cannot presume the
legislature would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void
one; or unless the court finds the remaining valid provisions, standing alone,
are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative
intent.
 
c) Petitioner argued that the Legislature would have exercised legislative
power that exceeds its constitutional authority in a hypothetical case where
the Legislature had passed provisions of the stadium law that directed the city
council to approve Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation and to disregard
charter provisions that require a referendum, and where there was no provision
of the law that stated that Charter restrictions do not apply.
 
For example: Petitioner argued the following point in memoranda in support of
the Petition: The legislature has the authority to enact general legislation
with like subject matter that can modify, repeal in part or whole, or abrogate
a local law, but a local law, unless repealed outright, can not be preempted by
a special law. Case law was provided to support that assertion.
 
d) It cannot be presumed that the legislature intended to enact legislation
that violates the Minnesota Consitition.
 
Minnesota Statutes section 645.17 PRESUMPTIONS IN ASCERTAINING LEGISLATIVE
INTENT:
 
"In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by
the following presumptions:
 
"(1) the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of
execution, or unreasonable;
 
"(2) the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain
 
"(3) the legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United
States or of this state
 
"(4) when a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the
legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same
construction to be placed upon such language; and
 
"(5) the legislature intends to favor the public interest against any private
interest."
 
2) A lawsuit filed in Ramsey County District Court against the Legislature
challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium Legislation is not an option
for the following reasons
 
(a) Petitioner seeks a remedy for an unlawful action of the Minneapolis City
Council, specifically the violation of Minneapolis City Charter provisions that
require a referendum to approve Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation
 
(b) There is no possible cause of action against the Legislature in this matter
because there was no legislative preemption of any provisions of the
Minneapolis City Charter, and because it cannot be presumed that legislature
intended to enact a law that is unconstitutional.
 
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court should command the District
Court of Hennepin County to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Minneapolis
City Council to refer approval of the Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation,
2012 Session Laws Chapter 299 to the voters in a referendum.
 
Appeal of the decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council will the first item
on the agenda of the next Minneapolis Farmer Labor Association membership
meeting. Plans for the 2014 elections will also be on the agenda.
 
November 17, 2013
3:00 PM to 5:00
East Lake Library, 2727 E. Lake St., Minneapolis MN 55406
https://www.facebook.com​/events​/199967153521358​/
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Rest of post

 

Share

here is a draft of an additional argument I think should be used.
 
The trial court erred when ruling that the Legislature preempted the
Minneapolis Charter in the stadium statute. The trial court, in its ruling,
bestowed upon the Legislature a power that it has not previously enjoyed and
which is contrary to the constitution of the State of Minnesota and the
principal of home rule for cities like Minneapolis.
The trial court has ruled, and if affirmed would create law that would give the
state legislature the right to tell a local jurisdiction to disobey the law,
and its charter in the method of approval of a special law. The Legislature
did not, and trial court did not rule that the legislature overrode the
Minneapolis charter, but rather preempted it by using the language “The charter
does not apply” . This is an extraordinary ruling. If allowed to stand this
is a significant increase in the power of the legislature and a balancing
decrease in the power of home rule charters.
The legislature told the city of Minneapolis to violate the law and its charter
in two ways.
First, the legislature instructed the city of Minneapolis to approve this
special law by a majority vote of its city council andthe signature of the
Mayor. As the trial court found, this is a violation of the Minneapolis City
charter, in that the Minneapolis city charter would require a referendum of the
voters to pass a law which requires the city to spend over $15,000,000 (fifteen
million dollars) for a sports facility.
Second, the legislature also gave the city the power to approve this special
law by inaction. The statute states that if this special law is not approved
by the city council within 30 days it will have been deemed to been approved.
This approval by inaction is another violation of the law and the charter which
vests the city council and the Mayor with the power to approve special laws.
This provision also had the effect of prohibiting the city of Minneapolis from
following its charter and scheduling the required referendum vote as it would
be impossible to legally and logistically have the vote within the 30 day time
period.
The legislature took this unusual step because it had been told by the
Minnesota Vikings (its client) that a poll that the Vikings had produced
concluded that a referendum would not pass the voters of Minneapolis.
This ruling would allow for much mischief and shredding of the Minnesota
Constitution.
In Article 12. Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution, it says in part;
The legislature may enact special laws relating to local government units, but
a special law, unless otherwise provided by general law, shall become effective
only after its approval by the affected unit expressed through the voters or
the governing body and by such majority as the legislature may direct.
 
We believe that an accurate reading of this paragraph of the constitution would
severely restrict the authority of the legislature to directing how large a
majority would be required to approve the special law. The method of approving
a special law is reserved to be determined by applicable law, in this case the
home rule charter of the city of Minneapolis.
 
One could imagine a time that the legislature may believe that a vote of a city
council might not approve a special law. Could the legislature, using the
power granted by this ruling, order the city to approve the special law by a
simple signature of its Mayor? Why stop there. If the legislature has the
authority to order a home rule charter to be disregarded, could another body or
person even a non-elected one be chosen by the legislature to approve the
special law? Or could the 30 days be shrunk down to few days, or even minutes,
to allow the special law to be approved before the council could have the
opportunity to vote on it?
It is appropriate and needed here for this court to set the limits on
legislative power regarded how it can direct cities to approve special laws.
We submit that this new power is not consistent with the constitution of the
state of Minnesota. It is in violation of the mandate on how special laws get
approved, and it is a degradation of the power of home rule.
We pray that the court recognize that the city council did not have the legal
authority to violate its charter and that the voteto approve this special law
is not in effect without the required referendum of the voters.
David Tilsen
612-281-8576 mobile
612-823-8169 land line
Sent from my iPad
 
On Nov 17, 2013, at 12:03 PM, "Doug Mann" <<email obscured>> wrote:
 
> Here's a summary of the issues in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council
>
> The judge ruled in my favor on the following issues:
>
> 1) The charter provisions that require a referendum do apply to approval of
Chapter 3 of the Viking Stadium Legislation that imposes sales taxes on
Minneapolis
>
> 2) Local sales taxes to be imposed via Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation
are local resources within the meaning of the Minneapolis Charter.
>
> 3) The Charter provisions that require a referendum were not repealed by the
Stadium Legislation,
>
> 4) The charter provisions that require a referendum were not explicitly
preempted by the Stadium Law as written
>
> 5) The Petitioner has standing to sue the City Council by virtue of his
status as a citizen with an interest in upholding the charter provision.
>
> Petitioner concurs with the District Court ruling on the above issues.
>
> The judge dismissed the Mandamus Petition on two issues:
>
> 1) The judge asserted that provisions of the Stadium legislation that
directed the City Council to approve the Stadium legislation and to disregard
Charter provisions that require a referendum represent an inferred preemption
of the charter because it can be presumed that the Legislature intended to
preempt the Charter provisions. Thus the City Council was not obligated to
refer approval of the local stadium taxes to the voters
>
> 2) The Petitioner had another legal remedy: A lawsuit against the Legislature
challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium Legislation.
>
> The Petitioner disagrees with the District Court decision to dismiss the
Mandamus Petition for the following reasons
>
> 1) It may be presumed that the Legislature intended to do what it did and not
what it didn't do, and that the Legislature did not intend to exercise
legislative power that exceeds its constitutional authority.
>
> a) Both Petitioner and Respondent asserted that the legislation as written
did not implicate any charter provisions.
>
> b) The directive to the city council to approve the Stadium Legislation
and to disregard charter provisions that require a referendum were essentially
and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon the provision of the
Legislation that stated that the Charter restriction do not apply, that it
cannot be presumed that the Legislature would have enacted the former
provisions without enacting the latter.
>
> Minnesota Statutes, section 645.20 Construction of Severable Provisions
states, in part:
>
> ". . .If any provision of a law is found to be unconstitutional and void, the
remaining provisions of the law shall remain valid, unless the court finds the
valid provisions of the law are so essentially and inseparably connected with,
and so dependent upon the void provisions that the court cannot presume the
legislature would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void
one; or unless the court finds the remaining valid provisions, standing alone,
are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative
intent.
>
> c) Petitioner argued that the Legislature would have exercised legislative
power that exceeds its constitutional authority in a hypothetical case where
the Legislature had passed provisions of the stadium law that directed the city
council to approve Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation and to disregard
charter provisions that require a referendum, and where there was no provision
of the law that stated that Charter restrictions do not apply.
>
> For example: Petitioner argued the following point in memoranda in support of
the Petition: The legislature has the authority to enact general legislation
with like subject matter that can modify, repeal in part or whole, or abrogate
a local law, but a local law, unless repealed outright, can not be preempted by
a special law. Case law was provided to support that assertion.
>
> d) It cannot be presumed that the legislature intended to enact legislation
that violates the Minnesota Consitition.
>
> Minnesota Statutes section 645.17 PRESUMPTIONS IN ASCERTAINING LEGISLATIVE
INTENT:
>
> "In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by
the following presumptions:
>
> "(1) the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of
execution, or unreasonable;
>
> "(2) the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain
>
> "(3) the legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the
United States or of this state
>
> "(4) when a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the
legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same
construction to be placed upon such language; and
>
> "(5) the legislature intends to favor the public interest against any private
interest."
>
> 2) A lawsuit filed in Ramsey County District Court against the Legislature
challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium Legislation is not an option
for the following reasons
>
> (a) Petitioner seeks a remedy for an unlawful action of the Minneapolis City
Council, specifically the violation of Minneapolis City Charter provisions that
require a referendum to approve Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation
>
> (b) There is no possible cause of action against the Legislature in this
matter because there was no legislative preemption of any provisions of the
Minneapolis City Charter, and because it cannot be presumed that legislature
intended to enact a law that is unconstitutional.
>
> For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court should command the District
Court of Hennepin County to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Minneapolis
City Council to refer approval of the Chapter 3 of the Stadium Legislation,
2012 Session Laws Chapter 299 to the voters in a referendum.
>
> Appeal of the decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council will the first
item

Rest of post

> on the agenda of the next Minneapolis Farmer Labor Association membership
> meeting. Plans for the 2014 elections will also be on the agenda.
>
> November 17, 2013
> 3:00 PM to 5:00
> East Lake Library, 2727 E. Lake St., Minneapolis MN 55406
> https://www.facebook.com​/events​/199967153521358​/
>
> Doug Mann for School board
> http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
>
> Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
> http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
>
> Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
>
>
>
>
> Doug Mann
> Folwell, Minneapolis
> About/contact Doug Mann: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/dougmann
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/4l1EQTt6hQoDH9chxfd6IN
>
>
> *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive
> *** Donate today: http://e-democracy.org/donate
> *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no quotes)
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

Share

Doug et.al.,
I'm in for $100.
As for the new mayor let's review the recent past. Mayor Sayles-Belton brought
us the Twins stadium, Mayor Rybak the Vikings, Mayor Hodges is on the football
stadium committee and may want to support another pro-sports facility as a
"jobs" proposal.
We are living in a time when the weather "rules" are kaput and the law is no
longer the law.

Share

To help cover costs of preparing and filing an appeal of Doug Mann vs.
Minneapolis City Council, please send a check or money order payable to
 
Citizen for a Stadium Vote
c/o Doug Mann (Treasurer)
3706 Logan Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55412
 
Names of contributors will not be disclosed, even to my wife, to protect those
whose interests may be harmed by disclosure. Cash contributions are discouraged
to protect the integrity of the treasurer.
 
Cash contributions greatly exceeding minimal legal costs can be spent on a
lawyer and / or skilled paralegal. There is a possibility I can line get these
services free of charge, though I would prefer to pay as much as possible, up
to the going rates, as fund-raising permits.
 
The Farmer Labor Association met this afternoon and voted to support an appeal
of Doug Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council.
 
If the opinion of Judge Bush is upheld in its entirety, an important precedent
shall be set, granting the legislature authority to enact special legislation
that openly and directly violates local laws, without the fig leaf of
provisions that deem local laws inapplicable, including charter provisions that
require voter approval of special legislation. Henceforth unconcealed
violations of local law shall be deemed "inferred preemptions of local law."
 
Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Share

A more expensive but likely more effective lawsuit or request of a judge will
be considered by the same group of which Doug Mann is treasurer, I think. I
attended the FLA meeting on Sunday where the group voted to support Doug's
efforts (no, I did not vote for this), and they also voted to refer the matter
to the same stadium vote group.
 
Doug and Dave Tilsen believe an appeal of the decision has a chance, but I do
not, so I will send my $20 with the request that it be spent for a lawyer to
look over the whole mess and decide what the best avenues are to get us our
Vikings stadium referendum and find a way for sports boosters to get what they
want without screwing the businesses and people of our fair city.
 
If Judge Philip Bush had released his decision before the election, I feel
certain that two or three more incumbent CMs would not be returning to office
next year. His decision was incredibly helpful, but not in this way; but if
enough of their constituents write to convince them to resign, perhaps
replacements can be elected in the same election we all get to vote on our
stadium referendum.
 
Of course the Council could see the error of their ways and hold the referendum
now; after all, this decision makes it clear that they were duped. Let us have
the referendum and the ballot and those who lied to us can lie some more and we
can go to the polls knowing the truth.
 
I can't thank Doug and those folks helping him enough for stepping up and I
wish them well, but still think the writ of mandamus is the wrong way to go.
 
Wrong or right, send money. Money for Doug's efforts or money to hire a lawyer
willing to do what is necessary to send this Vikings deal back for some
essential tweaks.
 
Anyone know an honest attorney working for truth, justice and the American Way
as well as perhaps for money or for food? Might be a way to launch a political
career if you are not seeking membership in the 1% club or seeking to serve it.
You choose: work your way in or buy your elections (latter does not seem to
work as well as it once did; I'm hoping that in these post Citizens United
decision days that folks will be more discerning of those messages bankrolled
so as to become ubiquitous for what they are: BS.). Maybe some organization
with staff lawyers can take it on if we turn over the money raised for the
purpose.
 
Send in the money. Doug probably needs a thousand or two for the writ appeal
and we need twenty or thirty times that or more to pay for an attorney. Perhaps
you can write "writ" or "Leg" on the check to indicate what your preferred path
is, or both or none. I don't care much, just send in your money and let us get
our referendum or a better deal for Minneapolis and Minnesota.
 
Bill Kahn
Southeast Minneapolis
 
On Nov 17, 2013, at 8:10 PM, "Doug Mann" <<email obscured>> wrote:
 
> To help cover costs of preparing and filing an appeal of Doug Mann vs.
Minneapolis City Council, please send a check or money order payable to
>
> Citizen for a Stadium Vote
> c/o Doug Mann (Treasurer)
> 3706 Logan Avenue North
> Minneapolis, MN 55412
>
> Names of contributors will not be disclosed, even to my wife, to protect
those whose interests may be harmed by disclosure. Cash contributions are
discouraged to protect the integrity of the treasurer.
>
> Cash contributions greatly exceeding minimal legal costs can be spent on a
lawyer and / or skilled paralegal. There is a possibility I can line get these
services free of charge, though I would prefer to pay as much as possible, up
to the going rates, as fund-raising permits.
>
> The Farmer Labor Association met this afternoon and voted to support an
appeal of Doug Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council.
>
> If the opinion of Judge Bush is upheld in its entirety, an important
precedent shall be set, granting the legislature authority to enact special
legislation that openly and directly violates local laws, without the fig leaf
of provisions that deem local laws inapplicable, including charter provisions
that require voter approval of special legislation. Henceforth unconcealed
violations of local law shall be deemed "inferred preemptions of local law."
>
> Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
>
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384

Rest of post

>
> Doug Mann for School board
> http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
>
> Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
> http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
>
> Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
>
> Doug Mann
> Folwell, Minneapolis
> About/contact Doug Mann: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/dougmann
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/5FGFd8fXY0dOb0fFIxGE4q
>
>
> *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive
> *** Donate today: http://e-democracy.org/donate
> *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no quotes)
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

Share

I am completely in favor of any legal challenges to the stadium and what the
city and state did. I also want to hear more on the political possibilities
Bill Kahn referred to. What can we do to put pressure on the new council
members and the new mayor?
Susan Kolstad

Share

YES! What Susan said. I personally cannot tolerate a situation where
education is starved for funds and sports palaces for the rich get my
tax dollars ... without a vote???!!!! Let's DO something to change this
situation.
> I am completely in favor of any legal challenges to the stadium and what the
city and state did. I also want to hear more on the political possibilities
Bill Kahn referred to. What can we do to put pressure on the new council
members and the new mayor?

Rest of post

> Susan Kolstad
> Susan Horns Kolstad
>

Share

I saw something about a man who adopted a neighborhood in orange county
florida. He provided free daycare and ensured access to college for every
student who graduated high school.
 
I looked into it a bit, and it appears to be true. The crime rate dropped
by 50% and high school graduation rates were 100% in 2012 (he's been doing
this for about 10 years).
 
What does this have to do with the stadium?
 
Based on very quick and dirty back-of-the-napkin calculations using local
community college rates, minn-post estimates on the costs of the stadium,
and figuring paying $50k/year for a 1 adult to 6 kid ratio in the daycare,
I estimate that the cost of what Minneapolis is paying for the stadium
would fund a program like this for 5 - 10 years.
 
Granted, in theory, the stadium should last 30 years or so. However, what
the further savings to our community would be if we saw a drop in crime
rates with all associated costs plus increased revenue due to a better
educated populous and parents who could more easily work, I can't even make
a good guess at.
 
- phaedrus

Share

David Tilsen writes
 
The trial court has ruled, and if affirmed would create law that would give the
state legislature the right to tell a local jurisdiction to disobey the law,
and its charter in the method of approval of a special law. The Legislature
did not, and trial court did not rule that the legislature overrode the
Minneapolis charter, but rather preempted it by using the language “The charter
does not apply” . This is an extraordinary ruling. If allowed to stand this
is a significant increase in the power of the legislature and a balancing
decrease in the power of home rule charters.
 
Doug Mann responds,
 
The judge ruled that language in the legislation that says "Charter
restrictions do not apply" is simply wrong. The Charter restrictions do apply.
That is a moot point. The judge also ruled that the language in the legislation
that says charter restrictions do not apply is not a preemption of the charter.
The City Attorney made the same assertion, and so did Doug Mann. The Judge
could have signed an order to execute the writ based on his own analysis of the
issues in the case, but chose to dismiss the Petition. He came up with the
novel argument that the Legislation's directive to the city council to approve
the legislation and disregard charter restrictions showed legislative intent to
preempt the charter provisions and is therefore an "inferred preemption." How
does he figure that the legislation as written did not preempt the charter
because the directive to not refer approval of the law to the voters could not
be considered in isolation from language that says the charter doesn't apply,
yet he also says that the former can be considered as if the latter does not
exist in order to ascertain legislative intent. As I pointed out in my analysis
of the decision, MN statutes section 645.20 states that it cannot be presumed
that the legislature intended to do something that it didn't do, and MN
statutes 645.17 states that it cannot be presumed that the legislature intended
to pass a law that is unconstitutional in any respect. In my pleadings I argued
that the preemption of a local law by a special law, by any means other than
outright repeal, is not allowed under Minnesota Constitution chapter 12, and I
cited case law that is cited under the relevant section of the Minnesota
Constitution annotated.
 
Judge Bush provided solid arguments supported by citations of case law on all
key points of his decision, except the one that was decisive in dismissing the
mandamus petition. If my analysis of the decision is correct, the grounds for
appeal are judicial errors in ascertaining legislative intent, specially a
presumption that the legislature intended to preempt a local law in a piece of
legislation that did not in fact preempt a local law as it was written, a
deviation from the standard set forth in MN statutes, section 645.20; and
further, by not addressing an issue raised in the demurrer: That the preemption
of the local law by a special law is forbidden by MN Constitution Chapter 12,
other than by repeal. It cannot be presumed that the legislature intended to
enact a law that is unconstitutional, per MN statute section 645.17. That opens
the door for consideration of the limits of the Legislature's constitutional
authority that I explored in the demurrer (my reply to the City Attorney's
reply to the memorandum in support of the Mandamus Petition), because it is
relevant to this issue of ascertaining legislative intent.
 
Think about it. Why didn't the legislature leave out the language about the
applicability of charter restrictions to approval of the legislation? Why
didn't the legislation include language that preempts or repeals the charter
provisions? Could it have something to do with constitutional constraints on
legislative authority?
 
If Bush's doctrine of inferred preemption is upheld on appeal, the legislature
will acquire the authority to preempt any local law by special law simply by
violating a local law, or ordering the local governmental body to violate its
charter or local laws in the interest of pleasing a big developer or raiding
the treasury of local governments.
 
What is required to prepare a kick-ass appeal?
 
The critical thing is getting a legal team together that can put in the time
necessary to do the paperwork, and to do it right. I have been offered expert
legal help free of charge, but shall insist on paying as much as possible, up
to the going rates, if we can do the necessary fundraising. At minimum I would
like to raise $5,000 for legal services under the above scenario. Costs of
court fees, copy-making, postage and so forth will likely run about $1,000. If
we really need the transcripts of the August 20 hearing, that could cost upward
of $2,000.
 
If I need to put in more than 24 hours per week on preparing an appeal, I will
have not have any income, because I am collecting up to $330 per week in
unemployment benefits and will not be eligible for payment any week that I am
spending 24 hours per week in self-employment. I think that work on preparing
the appeal counts as "employment" under UI rules, be it paid or unpaid. Job
hunting is supposed to be my full time job right now. I do not want any
compensation in excess of income lost if I am working on the appeal full time.
I generally spent more than 24 hours per week preparing the mandamus petition
and related work from early June to late August. I passed up opportunities to
earn at least $2,000 by not making myself available to work more than the 24
hours per week I was regularly scheduled to work during that time. And I was
possibly laid off because of that.
 
I would forget about doing an appeal if it looked like a hopeless cause, or I
saw an alternative legal option that looked more promising. But I think an
appeal is the best option.
 
There has been talk about pursuing another legal option that involves hiring a
lawyer, filing a lawsuit of some sort against the Legislature. The filing of a
lawsuit was not pursued by organized stadium opponents in 2012 due to an
estimated cost of over $60,000 in legal fees alone. It is rumored that Cam
Gordon shelled out $30,000 for a written legal opinion on the issue of whether
any charter provisions apply to approval of the stadium legislation, and
whether it would be ethical for the City Council to approve the legislation.
With a lawyer charging fees like that, the cost of ligation of a lawsuit
against the legislature could easily cost $100,000. The pursuit of justice
through the court system isn't cheap.
 
I think I can win. I got the best adverse decision from the District Court I
could hope for. But that is not a win. I did not file the mandamus petition as
a mere publicity stunt. I filed the lawsuit because the law is on my side, and
I am pretty sure that I am suing the right party: the City council, and not the
Legislature. I have been the primary actor in this struggle, but I didn't get
this far without a supporting cast. To go further, and to win I need more
money, a bigger supporting cast, and more folks in leading roles. I can't
guarantee victory, but I can certainly guarantee defeat by walking away from
this fight. Join me in the continuing fight for a stadium vote.
 
To donate money to the cause, send a check or money order to
 
Citizens for a Stadium Vote
3706 Logan Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55412
 
Phone number for Doug Mann: 612 824-8800
 
Note: I will not disclose the names of those who donate money, even to my own
wife, in order to protect those who might be harmed by disclosure, unless I am
given permission in writing to disclose the name of a donor. Please, no cash
donations, in order to protect the integrity of the treasurer.
 
Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Rest of post

 

Share

Clarification - a real lawsuit by a lawyer would likely be very
expensive but not nearly expensive as Doug is intimating. A fee quote
for a lawsuit last year was $30,000; not $60,000 or $100,000. Cam
Gordon definitely did not pay $30,000 for a legal opinion; I don't
believe he paid $1000. As I understand, the Minneapolis Farmer Labor
Association decided to support Doug's appeal through its committee
Citizens for a Stadium Vote, but also resolved to try to raise funds to
higher a lawyer for to pursue a case in Ramsey County. Hopefully, there
will be arrangements so people can direct donations to that effort.
 
Jordan S. Kushner
Golden Valley
 
On 11/18/2013 6:28 PM, Doug Mann wrote:
> David Tilsen writes
>
> The trial court has ruled, and if affirmed would create law that would give
the state legislature the right to tell a local jurisdiction to disobey the
law, and its charter in the method of approval of a special law. The
Legislature did not, and trial court did not rule that the legislature overrode
the Minneapolis charter, but rather preempted it by using the language “The
charter
> does not apply” . This is an extraordinary ruling. If allowed to stand this
is a significant increase in the power of the legislature and a balancing
decrease in the power of home rule charters.
>
> Doug Mann responds,
>
> The judge ruled that language in the legislation that says "Charter
restrictions do not apply" is simply wrong. The Charter restrictions do apply.
That is a moot point. The judge also ruled that the language in the legislation
that says charter restrictions do not apply is not a preemption of the charter.
The City Attorney made the same assertion, and so did Doug Mann. The Judge
could have signed an order to execute the writ based on his own analysis of the
issues in the case, but chose to dismiss the Petition. He came up with the
novel argument that the Legislation's directive to the city council to approve
the legislation and disregard charter restrictions showed legislative intent to
preempt the charter provisions and is therefore an "inferred preemption." How
does he figure that the legislation as written did not preempt the charter
because the directive to not refer approval of the law to the voters could not
be considered in isolation from language that says the charter doesn't
> apply, yet he also says that the former can be considered as if the latter
does not exist in order to ascertain legislative intent. As I pointed out in my
analysis of the decision, MN statutes section 645.20 states that it cannot be
presumed that the legislature intended to do something that it didn't do, and
MN statutes 645.17 states that it cannot be presumed that the legislature
intended to pass a law that is unconstitutional in any respect. In my pleadings
I argued that the preemption of a local law by a special law, by any means
other than outright repeal, is not allowed under Minnesota Constitution chapter
12, and I cited case law that is cited under the relevant section of the
Minnesota Constitution annotated.
>
> Judge Bush provided solid arguments supported by citations of case law on all
key points of his decision, except the one that was decisive in dismissing the
mandamus petition. If my analysis of the decision is correct, the grounds for
appeal are judicial errors in ascertaining legislative intent, specially a
presumption that the legislature intended to preempt a local law in a piece of
legislation that did not in fact preempt a local law as it was written, a
deviation from the standard set forth in MN statutes, section 645.20; and
further, by not addressing an issue raised in the demurrer: That the preemption
of the local law by a special law is forbidden by MN Constitution Chapter 12,
other than by repeal. It cannot be presumed that the legislature intended to
enact a law that is unconstitutional, per MN statute section 645.17. That opens
the door for consideration of the limits of the Legislature's constitutional
authority that I explored in the demurrer (my reply to the City Attor
> ney's reply to the memorandum in support of the Mandamus Petition), because
it is relevant to this issue of ascertaining legislative intent.
>
> Think about it. Why didn't the legislature leave out the language about the
applicability of charter restrictions to approval of the legislation? Why
didn't the legislation include language that preempts or repeals the charter
provisions? Could it have something to do with constitutional constraints on
legislative authority?
>
> If Bush's doctrine of inferred preemption is upheld on appeal, the
legislature will acquire the authority to preempt any local law by special law
simply by violating a local law, or ordering the local governmental body to
violate its charter or local laws in the interest of pleasing a big developer
or raiding the treasury of local governments.
>
> What is required to prepare a kick-ass appeal?
>
> The critical thing is getting a legal team together that can put in the time
necessary to do the paperwork, and to do it right. I have been offered expert
legal help free of charge, but shall insist on paying as much as possible, up
to the going rates, if we can do the necessary fundraising. At minimum I would
like to raise $5,000 for legal services under the above scenario. Costs of
court fees, copy-making, postage and so forth will likely run about $1,000. If
we really need the transcripts of the August 20 hearing, that could cost upward
of $2,000.
>
> If I need to put in more than 24 hours per week on preparing an appeal, I
will have not have any income, because I am collecting up to $330 per week in
unemployment benefits and will not be eligible for payment any week that I am
spending 24 hours per week in self-employment. I think that work on preparing
the appeal counts as "employment" under UI rules, be it paid or unpaid. Job
hunting is supposed to be my full time job right now. I do not want any
compensation in excess of income lost if I am working on the appeal full time.
I generally spent more than 24 hours per week preparing the mandamus petition
and related work from early June to late August. I passed up opportunities to
earn at least $2,000 by not making myself available to work more than the 24
hours per week I was regularly scheduled to work during that time. And I was
possibly laid off because of that.
>
> I would forget about doing an appeal if it looked like a hopeless cause, or I
saw an alternative legal option that looked more promising. But I think an
appeal is the best option.
>
> There has been talk about pursuing another legal option that involves hiring
a lawyer, filing a lawsuit of some sort against the Legislature. The filing of
a lawsuit was not pursued by organized stadium opponents in 2012 due to an
estimated cost of over $60,000 in legal fees alone. It is rumored that Cam
Gordon shelled out $30,000 for a written legal opinion on the issue of whether
any charter provisions apply to approval of the stadium legislation, and
whether it would be ethical for the City Council to approve the legislation.
With a lawyer charging fees like that, the cost of ligation of a lawsuit
against the legislature could easily cost $100,000. The pursuit of justice
through the court system isn't cheap.
>
> I think I can win. I got the best adverse decision from the District Court I
could hope for. But that is not a win. I did not file the mandamus petition as
a mere publicity stunt. I filed the lawsuit because the law is on my side, and
I am pretty sure that I am suing the right party: the City council, and not the
Legislature. I have been the primary actor in this struggle, but I didn't get
this far without a supporting cast. To go further, and to win I need more
money, a bigger supporting cast, and more folks in leading roles. I can't
guarantee victory, but I can certainly guarantee defeat by walking away from
this fight. Join me in the continuing fight for a stadium vote.
>
> To donate money to the cause, send a check or money order to
>
> Citizens for a Stadium Vote
> 3706 Logan Avenue North
> Minneapolis, MN 55412
>
 
> Phone number for Doug Mann: 612 824-8800
>
> Note: I will not disclose the names of those who donate money, even to my own
wife, in order to protect those who might be harmed by disclosure, unless I am
given permission in writing to disclose the name of a donor. Please, no cash
donations, in order to protect the integrity of the treasurer.
>
> Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
>
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
>
> Doug Mann for School board
> http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
>
> Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
> http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
>
> Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
>
>
>
>
> Doug Mann
> Folwell, Minneapolis
> About/contact Doug Mann: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/dougmann
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/5xMGBBKsCiSGQCv8AsP7xr
>
>
> *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive
> *** Donate today: http://e-democracy.org/donate
> *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no
quotes)

Rest of post

> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>

Share

Where does one start?
 
Inflation. All sorts of inflation.
 
The cost of transcripts of the hearing came up and the only lawyer at the FLA
meeting felt that the judge would wave them (I’m sure a computer file exists
already); even if costs were not waved, the County charges $5/page and
$0.25/page for additional copies. $2000 would pay for a 400 page transcript; I
suppose copies might cost something, but once a copy was scanned, not much per
page.
 
$20 for actions directed towards the State of Minnesota; maybe another petition
for writ of mandamus will work later.
 
Bill Kahn
Southeast Minneapolis

Share

I am appreciating all the discussion about this. The judge's opinion affirms
the position I have taken on this. To my thinking the vote that the Council
took giving local consent to the legislation that exempted the expenditure of
the city sales taxes in excess of $10,000,000 from being put before the voters
was inconsistent with my oath of office and in violation of the charter.
 
 
 
The opinion Robin Garwood and I paid for cost around $500 and at least backed
this up in part. I am happy to share that with anyone who has not seen it yet.
I am not a lawyer but find Jordan's thought worthy of carefully cvonsideration.
I woudl think that a good attorney who is well acquainted with municipal
affairs would be very valuable to have as next steps are considered and taken.
 
 
 
We are also now moving ahead, thanks to the legislature, with another charter
violation in the vote to renovate the downtown sports and entertainment arena.
We will also be using city revenues in excess of $10,000,000 to upgrade this
facility. I believe this should have also been put before the voters. It might
be worth including this in ture considerations as well.
 
 
 
Cam Gordon
 
Seward
 
 
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:09:04 -0600
> From: <email obscured>
> To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] The long-awaited decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City
Council
>
> Clarification - a real lawsuit by a lawyer would likely be very
> expensive but not nearly expensive as Doug is intimating. A fee quote
> for a lawsuit last year was $30,000; not $60,000 or $100,000. Cam
> Gordon definitely did not pay $30,000 for a legal opinion; I don't
> believe he paid $1000. As I understand, the Minneapolis Farmer Labor
> Association decided to support Doug's appeal through its committee
> Citizens for a Stadium Vote, but also resolved to try to raise funds to
> higher a lawyer for to pursue a case in Ramsey County. Hopefully, there
> will be arrangements so people can direct donations to that effort.
>
> Jordan S. Kushner
> Golden Valley
>
> On 11/18/2013 6:28 PM, Doug Mann wrote:
> > David Tilsen writes
> >
> > The trial court has ruled, and if affirmed would create law that would give
the state legislature the right to tell a local jurisdiction to disobey the
law, and its charter in the method of approval of a special law. The
Legislature did not, and trial court did not rule that the legislature overrode
the Minneapolis charter, but rather preempted it by using the language The
charter
> > does not apply . This is an extraordinary ruling. If allowed to stand this
is a significant increase in the power of the legislature and a balancing
decrease in the power of home rule charters.
> >
> > Doug Mann responds,
> >
> > The judge ruled that language in the legislation that says "Charter
restrictions do not apply" is simply wrong. The Charter restrictions do apply.
That is a moot point. The judge also ruled that the language in the legislation
that says charter restrictions do not apply is not a preemption of the charter.
The City Attorney made the same assertion, and so did Doug Mann. The Judge
could have signed an order to execute the writ based on his own analysis of the
issues in the case, but chose to dismiss the Petition. He came up with the
novel argument that the Legislation's directive to the city council to approve
the legislation and disregard charter restrictions showed legislative intent to
preempt the charter provisions and is therefore an "inferred preemption." How
does he figure that the legislation as written did not preempt the charter
because the directive to not refer approval of the law to the voters could not
be considered in isolation from language that says the charter doesn
> 't
> > apply, yet he also says that the former can be considered as if the latter
does not exist in order to ascertain legislative intent. As I pointed out in my
analysis of the decision, MN statutes section 645.20 states that it cannot be
presumed that the legislature intended to do something that it didn't do, and
MN statutes 645.17 states that it cannot be presumed that the legislature
intended to pass a law that is unconstitutional in any respect. In my pleadings
I argued that the preemption of a local law by a special law, by any means
other than outright repeal, is not allowed under Minnesota Constitution chapter
12, and I cited case law that is cited under the relevant section of the
Minnesota Constitution annotated.
> >
> > Judge Bush provided solid arguments supported by citations of case law on
all key points of his decision, except the one that was decisive in dismissing
the mandamus petition. If my analysis of the decision is correct, the grounds
for appeal are judicial errors in ascertaining legislative intent, specially a
presumption that the legislature intended to preempt a local law in a piece of
legislation that did not in fact preempt a local law as it was written, a
deviation from the standard set forth in MN statutes, section 645.20; and
further, by not addressing an issue raised in the demurrer: That the preemption
of the local law by a special law is forbidden by MN Constitution Chapter 12,
other than by repeal. It cannot be presumed that the legislature intended to
enact a law that is unconstitutional, per MN statute section 645.17. That opens
the door for consideration of the limits of the Legislature's constitutional
authority that I explored in the demurrer (my reply to the City Att
> or
> > ney's reply to the memorandum in support of the Mandamus Petition), because
it is relevant to this issue of ascertaining legislative intent.
> >
> > Think about it. Why didn't the legislature leave out the language about the
applicability of charter restrictions to approval of the legislation? Why
didn't the legislation include language that preempts or repeals the charter
provisions? Could it have something to do with constitutional constraints on
legislative authority?
> >
> > If Bush's doctrine of inferred preemption is upheld on appeal, the
legislature will acquire the authority to preempt any local law by special law
simply by violating a local law, or ordering the local governmental body to
violate its charter or local laws in the interest of pleasing a big developer
or raiding the treasury of local governments.
> >
> > What is required to prepare a kick-ass appeal?
> >
> > The critical thing is getting a legal team together that can put in the
time necessary to do the paperwork, and to do it right. I have been offered
expert legal help free of charge, but shall insist on paying as much as
possible, up to the going rates, if we can do the necessary fundraising. At
minimum I would like to raise $5,000 for legal services under the above
scenario. Costs of court fees, copy-making, postage and so forth will likely
run about $1,000. If we really need the transcripts of the August 20 hearing,
that could cost upward of $2,000.
> >
> > If I need to put in more than 24 hours per week on preparing an appeal, I
will have not have any income, because I am collecting up to $330 per week in
unemployment benefits and will not be eligible for payment any week that I am
spending 24 hours per week in self-employment. I think that work on preparing
the appeal counts as "employment" under UI rules, be it paid or unpaid. Job
hunting is supposed to be my full time job right now. I do not want any
compensation in excess of income lost if I am working on the appeal full time.
I generally spent more than 24 hours per week preparing the mandamus petition
and related work from early June to late August. I passed up opportunities to
earn at least $2,000 by not making myself available to work more than the 24
hours per week I was regularly scheduled to work during that time. And I was
possibly laid off because of that.
> >
> > I would forget about doing an appeal if it looked like a hopeless cause, or
I saw an alternative legal option that looked more promising. But I think an
appeal is the best option.
> >
> > There has been talk about pursuing another legal option that involves
hiring a lawyer, filing a lawsuit of some sort against the Legislature. The
filing of a lawsuit was not pursued by organized stadium opponents in 2012 due
to an estimated cost of over $60,000 in legal fees alone. It is rumored that
Cam Gordon shelled out $30,000 for a written legal opinion on the issue of
whether any charter provisions apply to approval of the stadium legislation,
and whether it would be ethical for the City Council to approve the
legislation. With a lawyer charging fees like that, the cost of ligation of a
lawsuit against the legislature could easily cost $100,000. The pursuit of
justice through the court system isn't cheap.
> >
> > I think I can win. I got the best adverse decision from the District Court
I could hope for. But that is not a win. I did not file the mandamus petition
as a mere publicity stunt. I filed the lawsuit because the law is on my side,
and I am pretty sure that I am suing the right party: the City council, and not
the Legislature. I have been the primary actor in this struggle, but I didn't
get this far without a supporting cast. To go further, and to win I need more
money, a bigger supporting cast, and more folks in leading roles. I can't
guarantee victory, but I can certainly guarantee defeat by walking away from
this fight. Join me in the continuing fight for a stadium vote.
> >
> > To donate money to the cause, send a check or money order to
> >
> > Citizens for a Stadium Vote
> > 3706 Logan Avenue North
> > Minneapolis, MN 55412
> >
>
> > Phone number for Doug Mann: 612 824-8800
> >
> > Note: I will not disclose the names of those who donate money, even to my
own wife, in order to protect those who might be harmed by disclosure, unless I
am given permission in writing to disclose the name of a donor. Please, no cash
donations, in order to protect the integrity of the treasurer.
> >
> > Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
> >
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
> >
> > Doug Mann for School board
> > http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
> >
> > Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
> > http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
> >
> > Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Doug Mann
> > Folwell, Minneapolis
> > About/contact Doug Mann: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/dougmann
> >
> > View full topic or share:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/5xMGBBKsCiSGQCv8AsP7xr
> >
> >
> > *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive
> > *** Donate today: http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> > Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no
quotes)

Rest of post

> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> > #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
> >
> > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
> >
> > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
> >
>
>
>
> Jordan Kushner
> Golden Valley, Golden Valley
> About/contact Jordan Kushner: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/jordankushner
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/39FxLPrf4FJSxxtTAs4Nty
>
>
> *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive
> *** Donate today: http://e-democracy.org/donate
> *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no quotes)
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

Share

I am not a lawyer either, but it seems that the charter provisions that require
a referendum on public funding on professional sports facilities should be
followed by the city council, which apparently figures those charter provisions
don't apply. Am I going to have to file yet another writ of mandamus?
 
AGAIN WITH THE MANDAMUS APPEAL
 
The grounds for appeal of Bush's are complicated, but here's another effort to
make an insanely complex legal puzzle understandable to most of us non-legally
trained mortals.
 
Curiously, most of the decision lays the basis for a decision in my favor. The
dismissal was based on a novel standard of ascertaining legislative intent that
conflicts with standard laid out in MN statutes sections 645.20 and 645.17.
 
Judge Bush asserted that the legislation as written did not preempt the charter
provisions that require a referendum, because of the language about the charter
not applying to approval of the legislation that was connected to directives to
the City Council to approve the legislation and to disregard the charter. No
preemption in the stadium legislation as written.
 
Per MN statutes section 645.20, it cannot be presumed that the legislature
intends to do something it didn't do in the legislation as written, such as
intending to preempt a local law that was not actually preempted in the special
law as written. If the effect of a voided provision is inseparably connected
with another provision not voided, it cannot be presumed that the latter would
have been enacted without the former.
 
Per MN statutes section 645.17 it cannot be presumed that the legislature
intended to enact a law that is unconstitutional in any respect. If the
directive to the City Council to approve the stadium legislation is understood
to constitute a preemption of City Charter provisions requiring a referendum
after the "Charter limitations do not apply" language is voided, then we have
to consider whether the new interpretation that a preemption was intended, and
thus inferred, would involve an exercise of legislative power in excess of the
Legislature's constitutional authority. A special law as written that doesn't
preempt the charter becomes, after voiding one provision of the law, a special
law that does preempt the charter. The 800 million dollar question is: Does the
Legislature have the authority to preempt a local law by a special law? That
issue was not considered by Judge Bush in his decision, but it was addressed by
Petitioner in pleadings, specifically the demurrer to the City Attorney's
Reply. Again, per MN statutes section 645.17, it cannot be presumed that the
Legislature intended to enact a law that is unconstitutional. That is why
Petitioner's argumentation about the constitutional limits of the Legislatures
authority are relevant.
 
Based on the District Court's own analysis of the issues, a decision to issue a
writ of mandamus would have conformed to standards set forth in mn statutes
related to interpreting laws and ascertaining legislative intend. The decision
to dismiss the mandamus is based on judicial error and should therefore be
reversed. Petitioner's errors in pleading his case should not deter the Court
from correctly interpreting the law and arriving at a just decision. The City
Council violated charter provisions that did apply to approval of the stadium
legislation and that were not preempted by Stadium Legislation. Therefore, the
only remedy available to the Petitioner is a writ of mandamus commanding the
Minneapolis City Council to refer approval of the stadium taxes imposed via
special legislation to the voters in a referendum.
 
To donate money to the cause, send a check or money order to
 
Citizens for a Stadium Vote
3706 Logan Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55412
 
Phone number for Doug Mann: 612 824-8800
 
Note: I will not disclose the names of those who donate money, even to my own
wife, in order to protect those who might be harmed by disclosure, unless I am
given permission in writing to disclose the name of a donor. Please, no cash
donations, in order to protect the integrity of the treasurer.
 
Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Share

Guess no one bothered to look at the source on local powers that I posted. The
decision does NOT expand legislative powers. I merely reiterates what has been
the law of the land since the inception of the country, but of which most
people are ignorant. The legislature has ALL power not granted to the federal
government explicitly. All local power is derivative, subject to override at
any time. The real defense against repugnant policies from the legislature is
electing state legislators who protect the people's interests. I completely
expect that a venture to challenge the law of the land throughout US history
will crash and burn. Which is why we've made a big mistake with ever handout
in the past of not ending the political careers of all involved. The courts
will not serve for a "do over". I think those who campaigned for the charter
amendment misled people, which is easily done when seemingly no one understands
the distribution of powers in our federal system.

Share

Doug, before you spend or collect any more money, I want you to count to three:
the three requirements that you must meet in order for a judge to grant you
mandamus. From the helpful Judge Bush decision:
> “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only to compel a duty
clearly required by law.” Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metro.
Council, 684 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2004) (internal citation omitted). To
obtain a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show that (1) the respondent
“failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law”; (2) as a result,
the petitioner “suffered a public wrong specifically injurious to the
petitioner”; and (3) “there is no other adequate legal remedy.”
You are quibbling with the position of the judge on #1, whether the respondent
has failed to perform a duty required by law. You came right out and said you
did not and will not pursue any action against the state that would have to
happen in another court than that in which you filed, so whatever reason the
judge gave, you likely lost that one.
 
He gave you #2, your standing.
 
Because you should have pursued action against the state, but did not, instead
choosing the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, you did not meet requirement #3.
 
I know that you think differently, but you have to realize what judges and
lawyers are going to think and say right on up the ladder of appeals: it is not
time for mandamus and soon there will not be time for much of anything.
 
A-B-C, 1-2-3, and you lose right on up to the top courts. You need all three
and you will be short or too late if you do not count.
 
Let us spend the money in the right places and win back our right to local
referenda and kick the folks who would deny us, out of government.
 
Count. Just learn to count and we'll all do better. The judge wrote a peon of
praise to you and your positions and if only you would count (he could have
written one or two pages and left it at that) you might lead us someplace worth
going.
 
We all must count.
 
Write the governor and your state legislative delegation and let us see this
thing done right and perhaps Doug and a lawyer or two can put even more
pressure on for these "decision makers" to do the right and lawful thing and
get us a reasonable stadium deal, or no deal at all if they can't do it
legally.
 
Bill Kahn
Southeast Minneapolis

Rest of post

 
On Nov 18, 2013, at 9:57 PM, "Jim Mork" <<email obscured>> wrote:
 
> powers

Share

Here are the grounds for an appeal of Mann vs. City Council in an nutshell:
 
The Petitioner meets all three requirement to be granted relief under the
mandamus statute:
 
(1) Respondent Minneapolis City Council failed to perform a duty which it is
obliged to perform.
 
(a) Judge Bush correctly determined that Charter provisions that require a
referendum for public subsidies for professional sports facilities in excess of
$10 million do apply to approval of the Stadium Act that imposes taxes to fund
construction and operation of a new Vikings Stadium and the stadium legislation
did not repeal those charter provisions.
 
(b) Judge Bush incorrectly determined that the Stadium Legislation preempted
Charter provisions that require a referendum because he did not correctly apply
standards for interpreting laws and ascertaining legislative intent set forth
in Minnesota Statutes sections 645.20 and 645.17
 
(2) Petitioner satisfied the requirement for standing.
 
(a) Judge Bush determined that Petitioner satisfied the requirement for
standing to sue. Petitioner concurs.
 
(3) Petitioner had no other legal remedy
 
(a) Judge Bush incorrectly determined that the injury done to the Petitioner is
the result of a preemption of Minneapolis City Charter provisions by the
Legislature because he did not correctly apply standards for interpreting laws
and ascertaining legislative intent set forth in Minnesota Statutes sections
645.20 and 645.17 .
 
(b) A lawsuit against the legislature for enacting an unconstitutional law is
not a remedy for the violation of charter provisions that do apply to approval
of the Stadium Legislation, that were not repeal, and that were not preempted.
 
If my reading of the law is correct, the appeal is winnable, and a lawsuit
against the legislature challenging the constitutionality of the Stadium
Legislation is doomed to failure because you would be suing the wrong party in
the wrong Court.
 
The key issue in the appeal is whether the Legislature preempted the Charter
provisions that require voter approval of stadium taxes imposed by Chapter 3 of
the 2012 session laws chapter 299, also known as the Stadium Act.
 
In finding that there was an inferred preemption of the charter provisions that
required voter approval of taxes imposed on Minneapolis by chapter 3 of the
Stadium Act, Judge Bush disregarded standards for interpreting laws set forth
by MN statutes sections 645.20 and 645.17, as follows:
 
(1) All provision of a law as enacted are valid unless the Courts rule
otherwise.
 
(2) If one provision is voided / invalidated by the Courts, the other
provisions of the law generally remain valid. However, MN statutes section
645.20 states that if a voided provision of a law is inseparably connected to a
valid provision of the law, it cannot be presumed that the legislature would
have enacted the valid provision without the voided provision. The provision of
the Stadium Act which Judge Bush deemed to be void made it so the Stadium
legislation did not preempt the charter. One can not presume that the
Legislature intended to preempt the charter.
 
Furthermore, MN statutes 645.17 states that it can be presumed that the
legislature does not intend to enact a law that is unconstitutional, i.e., it
can be presumed that the legislature did not intend to enact a law in which
there is an exercise of legislative power in excess of the Legislature's
constitutional authority.
 
The $800 million dollar question is: Does the Minnesota Constitution Chapter 12
forbid the preemption of a local law by the enactment of special legislation by
the legislature, other than by repeal. The answer is yes. I made that point in
pleadings at the District Court level. Whether the Legislature has authority
under the MN constitution to preempt a local law by a special law is relevant
to determining Legislative intent. Again, it cannot be presumed that the
Legislature intended to enact a law that is in any respect unconstitutional.
 
As a last resort, Doug Mann will proceed without legal representation. However,
there is a plan A and a plan B.
 
Plan A is to recruit a lawyer willing to work for free, but offer to pay as
much as possible, up to the going rate if fundraising permits. The fundraising
goal would be a minimum of $5,000, but it's not a disaster if we fall short of
that goal.
 
Plan B is to consult with some lawyers and ask them to put in a bid on the job.
Then we need to raise the funds necessary to pay the lawyer who makes the best
offer. Fundraising required is unknown, but is likely to more than $5,000.
 
If we can implement plan A or B, there will be no need for Doug Mann to go full
time to prepare a strong appeal. Doug Mann will have no income any week he is
working full time on the appeal, because he is unemployed and collecting
unemployment benefits. I am sure the NSA is aware of this. I shall therefore
restrict myself to working on the appeal on a part-time basis, less than 24
hours per week, unless it is possible to compensate me for lost income, which
would be $330 per week.
 
At this point I have enough money pledged to file the lawsuit, which is $550.
And there will be additional costs for copies, postage, supplies. There a $100
in the bank and a $25 check arrived in the mail today.
 
Join me in the fight for a stadium vote. Donate your time, talents and money to
help win the appeal. Send a check or money order to
 
Citizens for a stadium vote
3706 Logan Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55412
 
Please write "Appeal" on the memo line of your check or money order to ensure
that your donation goes to pay for the appeal, and not to a lawsuit against the
Legislature.
 
Note: I will not disclose the names of those who donate money, even to my own
wife, in order to protect those who might be harmed by disclosure, unless I am
given permission in writing to disclose the name of a donor, and instructed to
disclose the name of the donor. Please, no cash donations, in order to protect
the integrity of the treasurer.
 
Phone number for Doug Mann: 612 824-8800
 
Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Rest of post

 

Share

Uh, guys? This fight is over:
 
http://blogs.mprnews.org​/stadium​-watch​/2013​/11​/19​/new​-vikings​-stadium​-ground​-breaking​-scheduled​-for​-dec​-3​/
 
Time to find a new windmill to tilt at.
 
Mark Snyder
Windom Park

Share

Agree - you need to go after the recent council/mayor decision on the Target
Center, which was a 10-0 vote by the council, including the newly elected mayor
which supports spending more than $10M on a sports facility, again, with NO
public hearing/vote. Take a look at the letter I submitted on Oct 31, re:
Target Center Deal, and it got ignored.
 
October 31, 2013
 
To: Mr. Robert Lilligren - Chair, Committee of the Whole & Council Members
 
From: Stephanie Woodruff – Vice Chair Audit Committee, City of Minneapolis
 
Subject: Target Center Funding
 
On today’s agenda for approval, is a recommendation to sign a binding agreement
with the Minnesota Timberwolves and AEG Management that will require the
issuance of $97 million dollars of city-backed general obligation bonds for the
renovation of Target Center. If approved, the action will spend $48.5 million
of discretionary city sales tax dollars plus financing costs and interest.
Other than a press conference on Monday, there has been no notice to citizens
or neighborhoods. In fact, the staff report only became available yesterday.
 
The Council is likely to commit these city funds and no public hearing has been
scheduled prior to the November 12th Council vote. Per the press conference
announcing the proposed deal, the Council is relying on the 2012 stadium
legislation to override the voter approved Charter amendment which required a
vote of the public before the expenditure of more than $10M dollars on a sports
venue in Minneapolis.
 
The Target Center and the Timberwolves are statewide assets that provide value
to residents throughout the region and significant tax revenues to the State of
Minnesota. Until recently, you recognized the need for state funding for the
Target Center and prioritized capital assistance for Target Center maintenance
on the City’s bonding agenda. Ironically, the power point presentation states
“Target Center Renovation – A Sensible Minnesota Solution.” The renovation may
solve a statewide, problem but it is the neighborhoods and citizens of
Minneapolis that will solely bear the burden.
 
There is a critical need for transparency and public information before you
take any action on this matter. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency on
critical spending decisions over the past several years has only increased the
lack of trust our citizens have in City Hall.
 
Since 2009:
•In 2009, the legislature gave the City flexibility in the use of sales tax
revenues. (See attached) As you know, that legislation allowed the city to use
any sales tax revenues remaining once convention center obligations are met “to
fund capital projects to further residential, cultural, commercial and economic
development in both downtown and the neighborhoods. The Target Center falls
within the definition of this change in the legislation, i.e. “commercial and
economic development”.
 
•In 2009, following the passage of this legislation, the City Council
re-authorized the Common Project tax increment district. Neighborhood funding
at that time was limited to approximately $5 million dollars per year or
approximately 50% of the proceeds from the Common Project.
 
•In 2010 in a last minute change to the budget, the City substantially reduced
funding for neighborhoods and neighborhood organizations. (See attached Star
Tribune article). The reduction in neighborhood funding was done at the last
minute without any notice to neighborhoods.
 
•In 2012, the City Council gave local approval to the Vikings Stadium Bill,
which allowed the expenditure of $678 million in discretionary city sales tax
revenues for the Vikings stadium. The legislation that passed, overrode the
City’s charter for any sports or entertainment venue including the Target
Center. The public had no knowledge that this change rendered the Charter
requirement for a public vote, null and void, for any sports or entertainment
venues.
 
So, with all of that as a background, I have two critical questions:
 
•The current proposal expedites the use of sales tax revenues for the Target
Center renovation project. Could those same sales tax revenues be immediately
invested in our neighborhoods for economic development? If not, then why?
 
•Revenue from the Common Project will no longer be required to pay for Target
Center expenditures. Does the Council intend to restore lost neighborhood
funding by dedicating the Common Project exclusively to neighborhood funding?
 
As the Vice Chair of the City’s Audit Committee and as a financial professional
with 30 years of experience, I even had an extremely difficult time trying to
figure out where and how the City is spending its money. Minneapolis residents
and neighborhoods continue to receive confusing and misleading information
about how their money is being spent. It’s time to put that to an end.
 
Please take a step back from this decision and think about the future of the
city and its neighborhoods. You have already squandered almost $700 million in
revenues that could have gone to urgent neighborhood priorities. Don’t make
that mistake again.
 
Sincerely,
Stephanie Woodruff

Share

Just because our lame duck Council and mayor are serial Charter violators,
folks should give them the fruits of their previous crimes?
 
No. Just sue them and get your referenda.
 
Send in your money folks. It is all the same issue and these people need to
serve the electorate, not freeloading millionaires and billionaires.
 
Bill Kahn
Southeast Minneapolis
 
On Nov 20, 2013, at 9:24 AM, "Stephanie Woodruff" <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

> recent

Share

Find a stick, any stick, and jam it in their spokes.

Share

THE MOST RECENT CITY COUNCIL OVER-RIDE OF THE CHARTER
 
No doubt, the City Council has been advised by the City Council that special
legislation that authorizes the city to impose taxes for use on sports
facilities in excess of $10 million represents an implied preemption of the
Charter provisions that require a referendum on spending of more than $10
million. And that's where the revenue is coming from. Therefore the city
council is not obliged to refer approval of the target center renovations to
the voters in a referendum. And I am sure that the City Attorney will rely on
the decision by judge Bush in Doug Mann vs. City Council, which was, in the
opinion of our esteemed City Attorney the correct decision.
 
It is important to note that I've already earned my ticket to admission to the
Appellate Court. I have a decision from a District Court based on written
pleadings and a hearing. A lot of mandamus petitions are dismissed on first
review, without the judge providing any clear grounds for an Appeal.
 
Naturally, if Bush's decision is overturned on Appeal, the City Council will
have no legal cover for their most recent violation of the Charter provisions.
 
It is possible that if one files a mandamus petition to challenge the
legality of the City's most recent "over-ride" of the charter, a different
judge could arrive at a different conclusion, unless Bush's decision is upheld
and given the status of a published decision.
 
The decisive issue for a mandamus petition challenging the most recent
"charter over-ride" by the city Council will be the same as in Mann v. City
Council: Does the Legislature's authorization of local taxes that involve
expenditures on sports stadiums and incurred debt in excess of amounts that
trigger a referendum represent an inferred preemption of a local law by special
legislation? The City Attorney answer is "yes," and can argue that the
Petitioner's beef is with the legislature, making the same arguments as Judge
Bush, and even citing Bush's decision if it is published.
 
THE GAME OF PING-PONGING PETITIONERS
 
Before folks run to Ramsey district Court to sue the legislature over an
exercise of legislative authority in excess of its constitutional authority,
beware that Bush stated that the legislature does have the authority to preempt
local law by special legislation in the Vikings Stadium Act. But if Bush has
erred in his interpretation of the Stadium Legislation, as I maintain, the
appropriate next step is an appeal of Bush's decision.
 
How far could you go with a challenge of the constitutionality of special laws
that preempt local laws by inference. If the Attorney General is interested in
upholding the MN constitution and defending the constitutionality of the
Stadium Legislation and other such pieces of special legislation, she can argue
that the Stadium Legislation did not preempt any local charter provision, the
legislature does not have the authority to preempt any local law by enactment
of special legislation, and it cannot be presumed that the Legislature intended
to enact a law that is in any respect unconstitutional, therefore the
Petitioner is suing the wrong party in the wrong court.
 
If my reading of the law is correct, an appeal of Mann vs. City Council can be
won, provided that Appellate and Supreme Court choose to follow the law and
uphold the constitution as it has been heretofore interpreted as forbidding the
preemption of local law by special legislation, except by outright repeal of a
local law that conflicts with general laws or the constitution of the United
States and the state of MN.
 
A failure on my part to appeal Bush's decision is a win by default for the City
Council.
 
No challenge of Bush's decision in a lawsuit against the legislature which is
based on Bush's dubious argument that there was an inferred preemption of the
local law by special law is doomed to failure, because the law as written did
not preempt local law, it cannot be presumed that the legislature intended to
preempt a local law because the legislature does not have the authority to do
that. After all, it is clearly stated in MN statutes 645.17 that it cannot be
presumed that the legislature intends to enact a law that is, in any respect,
unconstitutional. Legislative intent is relevant to the interpretation of the
Stadium legislation after voiding the provision with language about how charter
provisions don't apply. The limits of the Legislature's constitutional
authority are relevant to ascertaining legislative intent and correctly
interpreting the Stadium Legislation in light of the voiding of one of its
provisions.
 
COUNCIL ETHICS RELATED TO PASSAGE OF MOTIONS TO SPEND MONEY, ETC.
 
Per statute, a member of a non-profit board of directors is deemed to be
responsible for any decisions of the board unless they register their dissent
by voting against it. Their only possible defense for failure to dissent to an
illegal action by the board is reliance on legal advice from their staff
attorney that the action was not illegal, unless the board member has reason to
doubt the reliability of their lawyer's advice on issues related to that
matter, such as known conflicts of interest, bad advice in the past. I think
that the same standard applies to the governing body of a municipality.
 
BOND SALTES
 
It is interesting that Stadium Bond Sales have been pushed back once again. The
bond sale was supposed to happen in August, then November, and now, either
December or January.
 
The Governor and the Stadium Authority may indeed have reached a point where
they cannot back out of their agreement to provide public subsidies to the
stadium. However, the primary objective of my lawsuit against the City is to
invalidate the City Council approval of taxes imposed by the stadium act of
2012. It is not a lawsuit to stop the stadium.
 
If my appeal of Order by Bush dismissing the mandamus petition is successful,
the City won't be responsible for debt service on its share the construction
bonds and its share of the stadiums operational cost. Thanks to the cleverly
devised financing mechanism for the construction bonds, the City of Minneapolis
won't be issuing any bonds and therefore will not own any debt and the state is
responsible for paying for operational costs, though relying on a stream of
revenue from taxes deemed not to be city resources. The authors of the Stadium
Legislation were too clever by half.
 
The Stadium Legislation stipulates that the bonds are not backed by the full
faith and credit of the state of MN. A bond backed by the full faith and credit
of the state state of MN would be a much safer investment, which means a lower
rate of interest. The greater the perceived risk for bond buyer, the higher the
interest rates on the bonds. With a challenge to the revenue stream from the
city to pay the bonds, along with projected shortfall of pull tab revenues and
other such revenues to pay the state's share, these construction bonds could
end up becoming junk bonds, and the cost of debt service could be many times
higher than originally projected by the Kaplan report.
 
The cost of repaying the bonds / debt will be greater than the principal amount
because of interest charges, just like a home mortgage payment. The Stadium Act
limits the amount of money that the state is obligated to borrow to pay for the
construction bonds, but there is no limitation what the state might pay for
interest charges.
 
Governor Dayton has passed up the opportunity to back out of the Stadium Deal
without significant financial liability. The contract inked with the prime
developer is worth hundreds of millions, and, as they say, a deal is a deal.
 
THE OBJECTIVE OF APPEALING MANN VS MINNEAPOLIS CIY COUNCIL
 
The objective of the lawsuit is to enforce our right to approve taxes imposed
by the stadium legislation, and uphold the Minneapolis City Charter. Stopping
the construction of a new stadium could be a secondary benefit, but not if the
state is willing to move forward with the Stadium project at any cost. That is
the Legislature's prerogative. The Legislature is immune to lawsuits
challenging its exercise of discretionary authority. A lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of a provision of a law, or a law in its entirely is allowed,
but I do not see a viable cause of action against the legislature along those
lines.
 
SUPPORT THE APPEAL
 
Join me in the fight for a stadium vote. Donate your time, talents and money to
help win the appeal of the Court decision that takes away your right to vote on
subsidies for sports facilities and large-scale economic development projects.
Send a check or money order to
 
Citizens for a stadium vote
3706 Logan Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55412
 
Please write "Appeal" on the memo line of your check or money order to ensure
that your donation goes to pay for the appeal, and not to a lawsuit against the
Legislature.
 
Note: I will not disclose the names of those who donate money, even to my own
wife, in order to protect those who might be harmed by disclosure, unless I am
given permission in writing to disclose the name of a donor and instructed to
disclose the name of the donor. Please, no cash donations, in order to protect
the integrity of the treasurer.
 
Phone number for Doug Mann: 612 824-8800
 
Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Share

Responding to the post by Audit Committee Vice-Chair Stephanie Woodruff with
reference to City Council Vice President Robert Lilligren's failure to respond
to her letter of inquiry dated October 31, 2013 and submitted to CM Lilligren
in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole of the Minneapolis
City Council, I am glad in retrospect that I cast my vote for CM-elect Abdi
Warsame in Ward Six.
 
Whether witting or unwitting, CM Lilligren's failure (as Chair of the Committee
of the Whole) to respond to a formal request from a ranking member of the
City's Audit Committee with regard to the then-proposed further public subsidy
of the Target Center is emblematic of a mulish resistance in the city's
leadership to let the sun shine in on what they do.
 
This was inexcusable behavior IMHO and I sincerely hope that CM-elect Warsame
and other CM-elect members of the City Council will be able to grasp the
institutional sickness that has been besmirching the good name of our municipal
government and toss it, if not the perpetrators, out the window.
 
Symbolic defenestration, as it were.
 
Fred Markus
Phillips West, Ward 6

Share

Only one CM, Gordon, raised concerns during the meeting in response to my
letter, that I hand delivered to every CM.
 
http://www.startribune.com​/local​/minneapolis​/231516181​.html
 
But, they all voted in favor (10-0), to move forward with the project, without
public hearing & a vote.
 
I tried to raise the issue of "transparency" during my 4 month campaign when I
ran for mayor, but I couldn't get enough attention. Even though I was one of
the 8 frontrunners, it wasn't enough. The status quo remains.
 
Here was my follow-up comment after their meeting, which NONE of the papers
reported.
 
Target Center - Public Comment
 
PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS ON TARGET CENTER RENOVATION IS A CHARADE
 
Mayoral Candidate Woodruff reacts to Public Input Process on Target Center
 
Contact: Paul Ostrow – Campaign Chair, 612.239.8612
 
The Minneapolis City Council agreed Thursday to take public comment on the
proposed dedication of city sales taxes to the renovation of the Target Center.
The public comment will be taken on November 8th and the Council will vote
November 14th to approve the plan. "This is already a done deal and people
know it. The public comment is just a charade," Woodruff said.
 
Woodruff compared the process to the Vikings stadium deal. "There was plenty
of time to stop the city's commitment of $678 million in sales taxes from
2021-2046. But Minneapolis residents were sold a bill of goods and even those
Council Members who voted no, did little or nothing to inform the public of the
financial consequences of the deal to the City."
 
Comments from City Attorney Susan Segal at the Committee of the Whole meeting
on Thursday, October 31st, confirmed that the 2012 legislation originally
focused on the Vikings stadium effectively overrode the Charter as to city
taxes for Target Center renovations. The Council, which split 7-6 on overriding
the Charter for the Vikings stadium, now appears unanimous in supporting the
override of the City Charter requiring a public vote for the Target Center
renovation.
 
Woodruff, who delivered a letter to the Council requesting more public input
immediately prior to the October 31st meeting, stated she was appalled by the
lack of public information and the total lack of transparency in the proposal.
"City Hall has become addicted to backroom deals. Just like the diversion of
property taxes for the Nicollet Mall streetcar and the $65 million subsidy to
the Ryan Development adjacent to the Vikings stadium, the Council appears to
reach consensus behind closed doors and then presents a united front for the
cameras."
 
Woodruff's letter asked that the Council consider directing discretionary sales
taxes to more urgent city priorities and stressed that the Target Center is a
state asset. "These are sales tax dollars that are desperately needed for
capital projects in our neighborhoods that could help us address the tremendous
economic disparities in our community." No one at the October 31st committee
meeting mentioned the possibility of investing these revenues into neighborhood
capital projects as provided for in the state statute since 2009.
 
www.woodruffmplsmayor.com

Share

I have not been able to understand Cam's strategy of "raising concerns" and
then voting for projects.
Susan Kolstad
Seward, Mpls.

Share

To My Friend Fred and Ms Woodruff,
 
I think we have to accept the realization that our good City has become
hopelessly corrupt. It has been a one party town for far too long [ I
consider CM Gordon to be just another DFLer ]. In the 2009 campaign for
Mayor, Rybak stated to the Strib editor Lori Sturdyvant that there had not
been an "Internal Audit of the City of Mpls for at least 5 years. Ms
Sturdyvant wrote the Editorial endorsing Rybak and stated that the
challengers did not know what they were talking about because the State
Auditor had done a "Financial Audit" the year before. So Ms Sturdyvant must
also have thought Rybak didn't know what he was talking about.
 
Now the question is, who can we get to do a real "Internal Audit" of the City
before they bankrupt us? Can we force the State Auditor to do this? Can we
bring in the State Attorney General? Who can we turn to?
 
For those concerned about the Vikings Palace and the Target Sewer, this is
only part of the Grand City Theft going on. This Council in committe just
approve TIFF and other public financing for 2 major projects, each on very
desireable land, for development. These project do not need, nor deserve
public money. Worse for the public and businesses of this City, this means
that each of these projects is off the property tax rolls and thus you and I
have to pay their share. This effects those that rent, especially for
business, but residence too.
 
The question has to be asked, what are our Council Members getting for doing
these massive give aways to major developers. How does one find out if
council members are personally gaining on the side. Since we have one party
in controll of all seats and the Mayor, who will ask such questions?
 
What do List members think of a Property Tax Strike? Would that get the
attention of someone with the resources to investigate this flagrant
squandering of public resources? How can people be protected from
government action if a property Tax Strike was called? Could the Money be
put in a protected fund until a settlement? But the money would not go to
the City until they complete an Internal Audit by a competent, credible outside
source.
 
I heard the City is going to raise Property Taxes by 8%. Since before 2007
the City Inflated many property values and thus raised the revenue they
generated. When the crash hits they lower few values. When forced to lower
values they increased the tax rate. If this City Council and Mayor use our
public resources wisely, I would not be so concerned about the taxes,
however, they are giving our money to the wealthy, the connected, the Sports
Barrons and the insiders. This City Council and our Mayor do not deserve the
support of the people of this City.

Share

Just to clear up the record about the Target center renovation issue. The
Council voted on this issue twice. I voted no the first time and was absent the
second. The first one was at our Committee of the Whole where I raised concerns
and voted against it. I was the only no vote. They then voted again at a
specially schedule meeting set for when I had a previous commitment. Had I
been there I would have voted no again.
 
The proposal calls for extensive renovations and updating of the Target arena
and fitness center that will cost a total $97-99 million. The renovation costs
will be divided 50/50 with Public/Private investment. All of the public
investment of approximately $48.5 million will come from the City of
Minneapolis. The Timberwolves team owners will pay $43M (44.3%) and the
company (AEG) contracted to operate the facility will pay $5.5M (5.7%). All of
the citys debt for the proposed renovation and for the ongoing capital
improvements is projected to be paid for through local sales taxes the same
source of revenue to be used to pay off our football stadium debt beginning in
2021. We will also have to continue using separate revenues from some tax
increment financing districts, and other funds to pay off the existing debt we
took on when we bought the arena and to cover ongoing capital and operating
expenses. This totals roughly $8-$10 million a year and will likely be paid off
in 2025. I opposed this plan primarily because I believe that the use of these
funds should be subject to the charter provision that calls for a referendum
before more than $10,000,000 is spend on a professional sports facility and
because I believe that the costs associated with improving and maintaining this
statewide, regional asset should be either (and preferably) privatized or (if
that is not possible) shared by the state and region and just the city. At the
committee I raised an additional concern that this agreement is premature and
that we should only enter into an agreement about the target facility as part
of a more global solution that will address the larger problem we have because
we have too many publically, but separately, owned and competeing
sports/entertainment venues.
 
This plan when paired with the Vikings deal, will force our sales taxes to
remain too high for too long and prevent any of the otherwise flexible sales
tax revenue from being used for other more important public purposes, including
neighborhood revitalization like perserving and replacing housing stock in aeas
hard hit by foreclosures and demolitions or updating park and recreation
facilities to accommodate our growing populations. I predict that this is
going to be a major issue for the City Council and mayor after 2021 and that it
should be a priority for the next Council to start working with the state and
region to correct this imblance and adjust this unfair burden on the residents,
businesses of Minneapolis.
 
If we are going to have so many publically owned sports/entertainment venues in
the region I am convinced that we need one coordinating regional entity to
oversee them or they will continue to compete with one another, continue to
lose money, and continue to function to unnecessarily subsidize economic
endeavors that can and should be able pay for themselves.
 
Cam Gordon
 
Seward
 
 
 
> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] The long-awaited decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City
Council
> To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:20:16 +1300
>
> Only one CM, Gordon, raised concerns during the meeting in response to my
letter, that I hand delivered to every CM.
>
> http://www.startribune.com​/local​/minneapolis​/231516181​.html
>
> But, they all voted in favor (10-0), to move forward with the project,
without public hearing & a vote.
>
> I tried to raise the issue of "transparency" during my 4 month campaign when
I ran for mayor, but I couldn't get enough attention. Even though I was one of
the 8 frontrunners, it wasn't enough. The status quo remains.
>
> Here was my follow-up comment after their meeting, which NONE of the papers
reported.
>
> Target Center - Public Comment
>
> PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS ON TARGET CENTER RENOVATION IS A CHARADE
>
> Mayoral Candidate Woodruff reacts to Public Input Process on Target Center
>
> Contact: Paul Ostrow Campaign Chair, 612.239.8612
>
> The Minneapolis City Council agreed Thursday to take public comment on the
proposed dedication of city sales taxes to the renovation of the Target Center.
The public comment will be taken on November 8th and the Council will vote
November 14th to approve the plan. "This is already a done deal and people know
it. The public comment is just a charade," Woodruff said.
>
> Woodruff compared the process to the Vikings stadium deal. "There was plenty
of time to stop the city's commitment of $678 million in sales taxes from
2021-2046. But Minneapolis residents were sold a bill of goods and even those
Council Members who voted no, did little or nothing to inform the public of the
financial consequences of the deal to the City."
>
> Comments from City Attorney Susan Segal at the Committee of the Whole meeting
on Thursday, October 31st, confirmed that the 2012 legislation originally
focused on the Vikings stadium effectively overrode the Charter as to city
taxes for Target Center renovations. The Council, which split 7-6 on overriding
the Charter for the Vikings stadium, now appears unanimous in supporting the
override of the City Charter requiring a public vote for the Target Center
renovation.
>
> Woodruff, who delivered a letter to the Council requesting more public input
immediately prior to the October 31st meeting, stated she was appalled by the
lack of public information and the total lack of transparency in the proposal.
"City Hall has become addicted to backroom deals. Just like the diversion of
property taxes for the Nicollet Mall streetcar and the $65 million subsidy to
the Ryan Development adjacent to the Vikings stadium, the Council appears to
reach consensus behind closed doors and then presents a united front for the
cameras."
>
> Woodruff's letter asked that the Council consider directing discretionary
sales taxes to more urgent city priorities and stressed that the Target Center
is a state asset. "These are sales tax dollars that are desperately needed for
capital projects in our neighborhoods that could help us address the tremendous
economic disparities in our community." No one at the October 31st committee
meeting mentioned the possibility of investing these revenues into neighborhood
capital projects as provided for in the state statute since 2009.
>
> www.woodruffmplsmayor.com
>
> Stephanie Woodruff
> Whittier, Minneapolis
> About/contact Stephanie Woodruff:
http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/4ZllDybvvgLUO3QtMGjkDQ

Rest of post

>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/559wM6n7e5VQCmjciIWBPP
>
> * E-Democracy.org lessons across Europe: http://bit.ly/clifteu13
>
> *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive - http://e-democracy.org/donate
> *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no quotes)
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

Share

The City Attorney has no doubt advised the City Council that they don't have to
follow the City Charter provisions that require a referendum because Judge Bush
decided that the Charter provisions were preempted by inference by the
legislature. And even our mayor-elect followed that advice and voted to move
forward with target center renovations without referring approval to the
voters.
 
Judge Bush cited no case law to support his assertion about an inferred
preemption of the City Charter by the Legislature, because no precedent exists.
His decision is based on an interpretation of the law that relies on his
determination that the Stadium Legislation as written didn't preempt the any
charter provision, but that the Legislature nonetheless intended to preempt the
charter.
 
However, Judge Bush ignored the standards for ascertaining legislative intent
and interpreting legislation set forth in MN statutes sections 645.20 and
645.17, which stipulate that one cannot presume that a provision of a law that
is inseparably connected with a voided provision would have been passed by the
Legislature, and that it cannot be presumed that the Legislature intended to
pass a law that is, in any respect, unconstitutional. Moreover, the MN
constitution forbids the preemption of local laws by special laws, except by
express repeal of the local law in its entirety, an issue I raised in my
pleadings. I also noted that the sales tax law, which is a general law,
requires a referendum. The MN constitution forbids the enactment of special
legislation that preempts, i.e., amends, modifies, repeals in part or in whole,
or abrogates a general law. The sales tax law was not implicated in the Stadium
legislation as written because of language that said any charter provision or
law that requires a referendum does not apply. And even absurd provisions of a
law are valid until someone goes to court to challenge their validity, and gets
a decision that voids the challenged provision of the legislation.
 
Judicial error on the above-referenced issue is the basis on my appeal of
Bush's decision. The judge made determinations on every fact and point of law
necessary to rule in my favor, and ignored my arguments about the Legislature
lacking the authority to enact special legislation that preempts a local law,
except by expressly repealing it. It cannot be presumed that the Legislature
intended to enact a special law that preempts local law that was not preempted
in the legislation as written, and it cannot be presumed that the Legislature
intended to enact a law that is, in any respect, unconstitutional. And a
special law that preempts a local law, except by express repeal, is forbidden
by the MN constitution.
 
Should I prevail on appeal, we get a referendum on the stadium taxes and the
City Council and mayor lose their legal cover to continue to violate Charter
provisions that require a referendum for spending on sports stadia and big
developments. They will need to get voter approval for those projects just like
the school board needs to get voter approval to issue bonds for capital
investments.
 
There is a risk of losing on appeal. But losing by default is a certainty if I
don't appeal. I am sure a lot of people would be interested in the opinion of
lawyers as to whether my argument holds water. Like potential bond holders
weighing the risk of buying stadium construction bonds, those of us who want
the chance to vote on the stadium taxes would like to get a return on our
investment, i.e., a victory on appeal. For what it is worth, My wife Linda, who
let her license to practice law lapse about ten years ago, but can easily get
it reinstated, thinks I have a solid argument that the appellate court will
have to consider.
 
I have the support needed to go forward with an appeal. I wish I had more
resources. And sometimes wishes come true. But as former secretary of defense
Donald Rumsfeld once remarked:"You go into the battlefield with the army that
you have, and not the army that you wish you had."
 
It might not actually cost much to hire a lawyer, or overburden a lawyer
willing to donate their services to prepare the appeal, because I am doing a
lot of the work myself. The judge's decision narrowed the issues, and no new
issues can be raised on appeal by either side. The assistance of a lawyer will
likely improve my chances of winning on appeal, and even if services are
offered free-of-charge, I will want to pay as much as possible, up to going
rate charged by a big large firm.
 
So as a snippet of a song lyric goes "Send lawyers, guns, and money" to help me
to win on appeal.
 
To send money, mail a check or money order to
 
Citizens for a stadium vote
3706 Logan Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55412
 
Note: I will not disclose the names of those who donate money, even to my own
wife, in order to protect those who might be harmed by disclosure, unless I am
given permission in writing to disclose the name of a donor and instructed to
disclose the name of the donor. Please, no cash donations, in order to protect
the integrity of the treasurer.
 
Phone number for Doug Mann: 612 824-8800
 
Citizens for a Stadium Referendum Facebook Community Page
https://www.facebook.com​/pages​/Citizens​-for​-a​-Vikings​-stadium​-referendum​-in​-2013​/409145455868384
 
Doug Mann for School board
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
 
Doug Mann for School Board Facebook Community
http://facebook.com​/mannforschoolboard
 
Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis

Share

My apologies to Cam for misinterpreting the Strib article. I do think the City
Council should consider much more seriously all subsidies to private companies
for construction. Case in Point Five 15 on the Park which, I understand was
just approved for almost $5 million in TIF money. That means according to the
developers representative that they will not have to pay property taxes for 25
years. The Vikings stadium "deal" is a huge shocking waste but it also takes
attention away from the other scams the city is foisting on the taxpayers.
Susan Kolstad

Share

Cam Gordon wrote:"If we are going to have so many publically owned
sports/entertainment venues in the region I am convinced that we need one
coordinating regional entity to oversee them or they will continue to compete
with one another, continue to lose money, and continue to function to
unnecessarily subsidize economic endeavors that can and should be able pay for
themselves." You know, tickets to these sports events are so costly that the
games can only be enjoyed by rich suburbanites, who perhaps are the only ones
who really want to be at a game. With such high ticket prices it is true that
they should be able to pay for the capital costs, along with the television
revenue. Perhaps the names of the teams should be changed to the Minneapolis
Twins, Vikings and Timberwolves to better reflect the funding.Gary FarlandEast
Calhoun> From: <email obscured>> To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] The long-awaited decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City
Council
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:57:33 -0600
>
>
> Just to clear up the record about the Target center renovation issue. The
Council voted on this issue twice. I voted no the first time and was absent the
second. The first one was at our Committee of the Whole where I raised concerns
and voted against it. I was the only no vote. They then voted again at a
specially schedule meeting set for when I had a previous commitment. Had I
been there I would have voted no again.
>
> The proposal calls for extensive renovations and updating of the Target arena
and fitness center that will cost a total $97-99 million. The renovation costs
will be divided 50/50 with Public/Private investment. All of the public
investment of approximately $48.5 million will come from the City of
Minneapolis. The Timberwolves team owners will pay $43M (44.3%) and the
company (AEG) contracted to operate the facility will pay $5.5M (5.7%). All of
the citys debt for the proposed renovation and for the ongoing capital
improvements is projected to be paid for through local sales taxes the same
source of revenue to be used to pay off our football stadium debt beginning in
2021. We will also have to continue using separate revenues from some tax
increment financing districts, and other funds to pay off the existing debt we
took on when we bought the arena and to cover ongoing capital and operating
expenses. This totals roughly $8-$10 million a year and will likely be paid off
in 2025.
> I opposed this plan primarily because I believe that the use of these funds
should be subject to the charter provision that calls for a referendum before
more than $10,000,000 is spend on a professional sports facility and because I
believe that the costs associated with improving and maintaining this
statewide, regional asset should be either (and preferably) privatized or (if
that is not possible) shared by the state and region and just the city. At the
committee I raised an additional concern that this agreement is premature and
that we should only enter into an agreement about the target facility as part
of a more global solution that will address the larger problem we have because
we have too many publically, but separately, owned and competeing
sports/entertainment venues.
>
> This plan when paired with the Vikings deal, will force our sales taxes to
remain too high for too long and prevent any of the otherwise flexible sales
tax revenue from being used for other more important public purposes, including
neighborhood revitalization like perserving and replacing housing stock in aeas
hard hit by foreclosures and demolitions or updating park and recreation
facilities to accommodate our growing populations. I predict that this is
going to be a major issue for the City Council and mayor after 2021 and that it
should be a priority for the next Council to start working with the state and
region to correct this imblance and adjust this unfair burden on the residents,
businesses of Minneapolis.
>
> If we are going to have so many publically owned sports/entertainment venues
in the region I am convinced that we need one coordinating regional entity to
oversee them or they will continue to compete with one another, continue to
lose money, and continue to function to unnecessarily subsidize economic
endeavors that can and should be able pay for themselves.
>
> Cam Gordon
>
> Seward
>
>
>
> > From: <email obscured>
> > Subject: Re: [Mpls] The long-awaited decision in Mann vs. Minneapolis City
Council
> > To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:20:16 +1300
> >
> > Only one CM, Gordon, raised concerns during the meeting in response to my
letter, that I hand delivered to every CM.
> >
> > http://www.startribune.com​/local​/minneapolis​/231516181​.html
> >
> > But, they all voted in favor (10-0), to move forward with the project,
without public hearing & a vote.
> >
> > I tried to raise the issue of "transparency" during my 4 month campaign
when I ran for mayor, but I couldn't get enough attention. Even though I was
one of the 8 frontrunners, it wasn't enough. The status quo remains.
> >
> > Here was my follow-up comment after their meeting, which NONE of the papers
reported.
> >
> > Target Center - Public Comment
> >
> > PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS ON TARGET CENTER RENOVATION IS A CHARADE
> >
> > Mayoral Candidate Woodruff reacts to Public Input Process on Target Center
> >
> > Contact: Paul Ostrow Campaign Chair, 612.239.8612
> >
> > The Minneapolis City Council agreed Thursday to take public comment on the
proposed dedication of city sales taxes to the renovation of the Target Center.
The public comment will be taken on November 8th and the Council will vote
November 14th to approve the plan. "This is already a done deal and people know
it. The public comment is just a charade," Woodruff said.
> >
> > Woodruff compared the process to the Vikings stadium deal. "There was
plenty of time to stop the city's commitment of $678 million in sales taxes
from 2021-2046. But Minneapolis residents were sold a bill of goods and even
those Council Members who voted no, did little or nothing to inform the public
of the financial consequences of the deal to the City."
> >
> > Comments from City Attorney Susan Segal at the Committee of the Whole
meeting on Thursday, October 31st, confirmed that the 2012 legislation
originally focused on the Vikings stadium effectively overrode the Charter as
to city taxes for Target Center renovations. The Council, which split 7-6 on
overriding the Charter for the Vikings stadium, now appears unanimous in
supporting the override of the City Charter requiring a public vote for the
Target Center renovation.
> >
> > Woodruff, who delivered a letter to the Council requesting more public
input immediately prior to the October 31st meeting, stated she was appalled by
the lack of public information and the total lack of transparency in the
proposal. "City Hall has become addicted to backroom deals. Just like the
diversion of property taxes for the Nicollet Mall streetcar and the $65 million
subsidy to the Ryan Development adjacent to the Vikings stadium, the Council
appears to reach consensus behind closed doors and then presents a united front
for the cameras."
> >
> > Woodruff's letter asked that the Council consider directing discretionary
sales taxes to more urgent city priorities and stressed that the Target Center
is a state asset. "These are sales tax dollars that are desperately needed for
capital projects in our neighborhoods that could help us address the tremendous
economic disparities in our community." No one at the October 31st committee
meeting mentioned the possibility of investing these revenues into neighborhood
capital projects as provided for in the state statute since 2009.
> >
> > www.woodruffmplsmayor.com
> >
> > Stephanie Woodruff
> > Whittier, Minneapolis
> > About/contact Stephanie Woodruff:
http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/4ZllDybvvgLUO3QtMGjkDQ
> >
> > View full topic or share:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/559wM6n7e5VQCmjciIWBPP
> >
> > * E-Democracy.org lessons across Europe: http://bit.ly/clifteu13
> >
> > *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive - http://e-democracy.org/donate
> > *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> > Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no
quotes)
> > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> > #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
> >
> > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
> >
> > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
> Cam Gordon
> Seward, Minneapolis
> About/contact Cam Gordon: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/camgordon
>
> View full topic or share:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/2KcjoopabN9g8uYxwZrevi
>
> * E-Democracy.org lessons across Europe: http://bit.ly/clifteu13
>
> *** E-Democracy End-of-Year Donation Drive - http://e-democracy.org/donate
> *** Donor Goal: 100 So far: 65 Needed: 35
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Post: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org or "Reply-to-All" to comment.
> Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no
quotes)

Rest of post

> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mpls
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> #mpls13 - Election 2013 - http://e-democracy.org/mpls13
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

Share

More on buildings of historic interest...
The Heritage Preservation Commission denyiedg the Demolition of a Historic
Resource application of the Star Tribune Building located at 425 Portland
Avenue (Ward 7).
Ryan Companies will be appealing this at the Dec. 9 Zoning and Planning
Committee.
Relevant documents are:
http://www.ci.minneapolis​.mn​.us​/www​/groups​/public​/​@clerk​/documents​/webcontent​/wcms1p​-117946​.pdf
http://www.ci.minneapolis​.mn​.us​/www​/groups​/public​/​@clerk​/documents​/webcontent​/wcms1p​-117947​.pdf
and
http://www.ci.minneapolis​.mn​.us​/www​/groups​/public​/​@clerk​/documents​/webcontent​/wcms1p​-117948​.pdf
It is interesting to read that "The subject property was constructed in 1919
and 1920 by the Nonpartisan League: the populist and somewhat socialist
agrarian movement that swept the upper Midwest beginning in 1915 and which led
to the formation of the Farmer Labor Party." More information is in the above
documents.
Sue Kolstad
Seward, Minneapolis