Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Minnesota has ANTI-SLAPP laws on the books.
What is a SLAPP?
Retaliatory lawsuits intended to silence, intimidate, or punish those who have used public forums to speak, petition, or otherwise move for government action on an issue.
Link Here

Senior Citizen Arraigned on Criminal Charges

A Centerville senior citizen was arraigned July 22nd in Anoka County on four criminal counts of ordinance violation. This resident was an active participant in obtaining petition signatures for the State audit of the City of Centerville. She was also vocal in the disagreement with City officials on the 2009 road project (Link Here) in which the City scaled back the scope and cost from the initial $7.8 million to approximately $4.5 million. Last but not least, she was also involved with a dispute regarding a variance the City approved for development on her street. Here and Here

This senior citizen is now being charged with violating the Centerville right of way/easement ordinance 93.17. One violation is due to two bricks placed in the ground (see photo above) to protect a sprinkler head from being damaged at the edge of the property. Meanwhile, there are 80+ other properties in town with same or similar easement violations that the city officials have chosen to not pursue.
One interesting example is a mailbox violation (same ordinance 93.03) in which a developer also former planning and zoning member is in violation. The matter was brought to the attention of the City Administrator Dallas Larson and here is his response Feb. 2008. As of today, the mailboxes still stand but not in the required clusters of no less than 4 no more than 6... Right next door to the alleged criminal senior citizen!
Currently there are no charges pending against the two year old mailbox violation.
Click images to enlarge
Other criminal counts the senior is facing pertain to ordinance 150.01 bringing in more than 10 yards of fill, altering the drainage plan for the property and constructing retaining walls without obtaining a permit.
Although the resident has obtained the necessary permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District approving the recent work our City officials have decided to move forward with criminal charges paying City Attorney Kurt Glaser a minimum of 95 (taxpayer) dollars per hour to prosecute.
Neighbors have verified that the retaining walls in question have been there for years and wonder why the City is now pursuing criminal charges.
Mayor Mary Capra is on record stating that the City of Centerville enforces ordinances on a complaint basis. City Administrator Dallas Larson has stated that the matter has been referred to the City Attorney and it has been left to the attorney to resolve the issues.

Is this complaint based/selective enforcement or is this the price citizens will pay for exercising their Constitutional Rights by walking petitions or speaking out at public meetings?

Wikipedia;
Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates Rule of Law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those they desire favors from.

Regarding Cannon Falls History Repeating Itself in Centerville

A blast from the past...
One resident in the know understands how City government works, or doesn't.
Click Here

Anonymous said...

There are two residents on Old Mill Road (10 acre parcels) that have been assessed $90,000 each for "best use of land" and "potential value" while Linda Broussard-Vickers sitting council member (80 some acres) has been assessed NOTHING!
Meanwhile, these property values have dropped dramatically!

The Anoka County court cases are still being litigated

Another resident on Peltier Lake Drive being assessed over $10,000 had the case thrown out on a technicality... Filing the wrong paperwork!

Link Here

Is there is a reason that the State audit has not been revealed?
Could Cannon Falls history be repeating itself here in Centerville?

July 8, 2009 11:19 PM

City Council Meeting 6/10/2009

Should the opinion of a "professional" (City obtained) Appraiser trump the findings of the Anoka County Assessor? Apparently, here in Centerville it does so by a unanimous City Council vote! The business was assessed more than the entire worth of the property!
June 10, 2009 City Council minutes taken directly from the Centerville City website.

City Attorney Glaser stated that he had reviewed all the numbers with City Engineer Statz and City Administrator Larson and conducted due diligence He had also hired a professional appraiser He stated there was one exception a previous assessment to the property in approximately 1990. At that time the entire parcel was owned by Sheehy and fourths to they sold three Lloyd Drilling Later the City purchased the Lloyd Drillings portion The total assessment was $82,000 He suggested that the Council be conservative and credit fourth or 500 which was paid on the old Sheehy approximately one $20,000 assessment This would make Sheehys assessment approximately $380,000.

Patrick Lee OHalloran, Sheehys attorney stated that Sheehy objection is two fold.

1. According to the Minnesota Supreme Court and the statutes all you can assess is an increase in the property value from the improvements. $316,000 is the entire property value according to the County Assessor

2 All benefiting properties should be assessed In this case no other property owners who benefited have been assessed

MrLee O Halloran stated that when Sheehy owned the entire parcel they were assessed and paid for the assessment Therefore they already paid for the same improvements and do not have to pay for them twice He continued that the east side of property borders Lino Lakes and Lino Lakes benefited as much as Sheehy The total amount received from Lino Lakes was $150,000 for the same amount of frontage. Mr Lee OHalloran stated that only a small section of their property needed improvement Sheehy would like Centerville to consider $154,000 the real offer for the as assessment, they believe is more than fair.

Adopting the Assessment Roll for the 21St Avenue Backage Road Improvements
Council member Lee stated that he is in agreement with the City Staff about the expected increase in value Council member Fehrenbacher stated that he agrees with staff recommendation on the $400,000 number City Attorney Glaser stated that when a party appeals an assessment to the District Court the Court does not decide what the number will be If it believes the City number is wrong it will be sent back to the City He noted that litigation could cost approximately $20,000 Councilmember Broussard Vickers stated that she supports the findings of the appraiser, City Administrator Larson, City Engineer Statz and City Attorney Glaser. Mayor Capra stated that she disagrees with the $154,000 number proposed by Sheehy She stated that she would agree to decrease the proposed assessment amount by the $20,500 credit for the earlier assessment
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers seconded by Council Member Paar to approve Res Adopting the Assessment Roll for the 21 St Avenue Backage Road Improvements setting the Sheehy assessment at $379,000. All in favor Motion carried unanimously.
Link Quad Press Story Here