Judge Watch: Do we get to vote on the Vikings stadium?

I think that we'll still be watching for this decision well after the election,
but I sent a query to chambers for kicks (may need Doug to do this to get an
answer, but as I've standing as well, What the heck?).
 
Judge Philip D. Bush is not statutorily required to return a decision on this
any sooner than 90 days from taking it under advisement or after the hearing
(Aug. 20, if you think the statute reads hearing date and not the point that
the matter is considered with all ordered submissions, a difference of a few
weeks); both dates would be well after the November 5th election.
 
The only remedy Doug has is a complaint to the judicial ethics board.
 
I don't think anyone is in a terrible hurry to get a decision except Doug, and
perhaps Judge Bush is hoping that the current Council will order a vote so he
doesn't have to order them or the a new Council to order the required
referendum, but with all of the funding schemes falling through except
Minneapolis local sales taxes and the stadium costs escalating well over $1
Billion, it does not look good for any stadium supporters out there running for
office in Minneapolis.
 
At this point, I think many more folks in Minnesota would appreciate
Minneapolis voting this down and sending it back to the MN Legislature.
 
 
On Oct 2, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Doug Mann <<email obscured>> wrote:
 
> No change in the status of Doug Mann vs. Minneapolis City Council, case
file 27-CV-13-13029. It has been under advisement since Sept. 9, 2013.
>
> As issue: Did the Minneapolis City Council violate the City Charter by
not referring to the voters approval of Chapter 3 of the stadium legislation,
which authorized the use of more than ten million dollars in city resources to
construct and operate a new Viking Stadium?
>
> The stadium legislation asserts that local sales tax revenues are not
city resources within the meaning of any law or charter provision. That is
presumably based on the assignment of local tax revenues to the state to pay
for state-issued bonds and operating costs for the stadium. However, why ask
the City to approve the use of revenues that don't belong to the city in the
first place?
>
> The City Attorney has an alternate argument: The Stadium legislation
gave the City Council permission to over-ride the charter. However, the
directive to disregard charter provisions that require a referendum is
logically connected to the assertion that City of Minneapolis sales tax
revenues are not "city resources" within the meaning of the charter, which is
clearly not so.
>
> There are constitutional limits on the authority of the legislature to
exercise legislative power: The legislature can repeal local laws not in
harmony with state laws, supersede local laws by enactment of general laws on
the same subject, but the legislature may not amend local laws or general laws
by enactment of special legislation. This check on the power of the legislature
is intended to restrain the legislature from enacting laws that are not in
harmony with equitable principles to which all laws should conform.
>
> The City Attorney's argument's about the legislating over-riding or
allowing the City Council to over-ride the City Charter involves an
interpretation of the stadium law that implies an exercise of legislative power
that exceeds the legislature's constitutional authority.
>
> Could delays in approving the contracts and issuing construction bonds
have anything to do with uncertainties over the outcome of this case?

Whatever, Doug. Thanks for seeking justice.
 
Justice would be having this decision a few weeks before the election so that
people have a chance to see what candidates say about it, however Judge Bush
decides the matter.
 
I know that if it goes Doug's way, that Mark Andrew will immediately start
campaigning for the stadium ("I think we could have won it," he said in the
first debate an age ago when I was sandwiched between Jackie Cherryhomes' hubby
and Cara something or udder at the back of the Humphrey Ctr. Auditorium).
 
I was not thinking seriously about filing for the office, just making what I
thought were empty threats, here, to get people to consider a form of
government to limit the nonsense we put up with day in and day out in our town.
 
As I looked down on the folks in front, Larry Jacobs and his students
questioning the DFLers in the race at that point, it became more and more a
moral imperative rather than an idle threat, for me to run.
 
Our town needs a game changer, folks, and I think it should be a charter
amendment to change to Council-manager system of government with reduction of
the number of wards to the five traditional sectors of the city (maybe ignorant
4th estate will realize that I live in SE, not those on the downstream West
Bank), and eight at large Council members. Elect anyone who will spearhead that
amendment (just me, so far) and step down as soon as you pass it.
 
BTW, I still support the Plain Language charter amendment even if we must
depend on the council to put back into ordinance, or not, what the Charter
Commission took out. It will make it easier to change to a new form of
government and I will not get headaches trying to figure out what the charter
means and suffer what others believe it means: We May Be Released!
 
 
 
Bill Kahn
Southeast Minneapolis
 
On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:57 PM, "Doug Mann" <<email obscured>> wrote:
 
> Bill Kahn writes,
>
> "Judge Philip D. Bush is not statutorily required to return a decision on
this any sooner than 90 days from taking it under advisement or after the
hearing (Aug. 20, if you think the statute reads hearing date and not the point
that the matter is considered with all ordered submissions, a difference of a
few weeks); both dates would be well after the November 5th election.
>
> "The only remedy Doug has is a complaint to the judicial ethics board." [end
quote]
>
> Obviously, I would be happy with a decision before the election.
>
> I assume that the Stadium Authority and the State of Minnesota would want a
decision before they are totally committed to paying for the new stadium, and
not afterwards, especially if it doesn't go their way. These governmental units
could intervene, perhaps via a writ of mandamus at the appellate or Supreme
Court level, asking for the higher court to issue an order to Judge Bush to
hurry up and issue an order because delays might impair contracts, this is a
billion dollar deal, etc.
>
> If there has been some secret communication between the judge and the other
party and that comes to light, then an ethics complaint might be appropriate. I
am not sure how else the other side could know for sure how this is going to go
down.
>
> Perhaps, Judge Bush isn't in a hurry to issue an order, because the timing of
it isn't crucial, and no one is forcing his hand. If the state and stadium
authority want to move forward with the contract signing and issuance of
stadium bonds before a decision is issued, that is a risk they'll have to take.
Or they could intervene to hasten a decision.
>
> Didn't the stadium legislation posit that the state was paying for the public
subsidy. No City Resources within the meaning of any law were being committed
to this project? The state is issuing bonds, not the city, plus the 7.5
millions per year in operating subsidies coming from the state treasury. No
obligation on the part of the city to be seen in the stadium legislation,
except for the surrender of the local tax revenues to help the state pay its
obligations. Maybe the authors of the stadium legislation were too clever by
half.
>
> It's possible for the judge to sign a writ ordering the City Council to
put approval of the local stadium taxes on the ballot.To do so, the judge would
merely have to rule that the stadium legislation erred in deeming local sales
tax revenues to not be city resources within the meaning or any law or charter
provision. Other than repealing the charter provisions outright, the
legislature simply does not have the constitutional authority to over-ride the
charter or give the City Council permission to over-ride the charter. If the
stadium legislation, chapter 3 is not approved by the voters of Minneapolis,
the state legislature will simply have to figure out some other way to pay the
share of the costs that Rybak and the magnificent seven wanted the city of
Minneapolis to pay so badly they couldn't let the voters decide.
>
> Doug Mann for Mayor
> http://mann4mayor.blogspot.com
>
> Mann for Minneapolis Mayor
> http://facebook.com/mann4mayor
>
> -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​/MdGXI6bhs3ZxCwUPvCAh5
>
> * CityCampMN - Attention Minnesotans, time to engage on civic innovations -
Sat. Nov. 9: