Vetoing the Council's failure to take an action??? Or indeed, was the Mayor simply vetoing any change to the South Whittier Redevelopment Plan?
Though Barb Lickness is correct about the transfer of the property to Basim Sabri, she is wrong about the re-bidding. Unless the City Council has specifically released that property from the conditions placed on the deed to it, there is in fact recourse for retaking the property by the City of Minneapolis. Scott Benson and others signed a deed to transfer the property to Basim Sabri with very clear conditions to the sale. The property was to be used for the industrial uses described and in the deed and if it were not used in that manner it was to revert to the City of Minneapolis. Unless those conditions were released in a legal manner they continue. Basim Sabri demonstrated that he had dealt in "bad faith" when he immediately applied for a zoning change to use the property in a way that violated the terms and conditions of the transfer document. As such City officials (if operating in a proper fiduciary manner) should have retaken possession of the property. The City should have returned Sabri's money and retaken possession of the property immediately. It was improper for the Planning Department and the Planning Commission to even consider the zoning change until that matter was resolved. Over 600,000 dollars of taxpayer money (in 1996 dollars) was invested in the Elroy site for a specific purpose. That purpose was identified by the South Whittier Redevelopment Plan. A plan that was legally adopted by the City of Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis issued a RFP for a developer to provide that SPECIFIC purpose. The City of Minneapolis conveyed the same property not with a clear title but with a document that listed very specific conditions for that transfer and very specific actions if the conditions were not specifically performed upon. That deed and contract with those specific conditions was signed this year. My question is, "Who was paid to release those conditions?" If the conditions were not released then I, the residents of Whittier Neighborhood, and the residents and taxpayers of all of Minneapolis demand that our elected officials exercise fiduciary responsibility and have the City Attorney begin action to recover the property. Terrell Brown is correct when he says, "[TB] Is an overlay district automatic unless the Council rejects it? I'm trying to understand what Mayor Rybak vetoed. How do you veto the Council _not_ doing something? If the Mayor wants an ordinance and the Council votes it down, does the Mayor just veto it and make it law?" Great insight Terrel!!! Insight that I missed, and I am sure RT and some Council Members missed! Since the overlay is the existing "Law", then a City Council action would be needed to overturn it. It is impossible to veto an action that did not take place. Veto means to stop an action. In this case the Council voted to not do an action. RT's veto was in effect stopping the Council from something that it had not done to start with, like saying "Stop not doing that". Did RT really think that he could force the Council to do something by vetoing its failure to do something? Hopefully, RT's veto will give cause for the City Council to reconsider the transfer of the property and solve this smelly situation for the Mayor. Sometimes our "Strong Council" form of city government does have its advantages. It prevents hasty mistakes from being carried out by an impulsive mayor who might be acting in good faith on very bad advice and information. Can any of the readers imagine the chaos that would ensue if the Mayor could actually veto inaction and make policy and zoning law by the veto method? While it may sound funny when thinking of some Council actions, still I think I prefer even a "Strong Council" to an Emperor. The Mayor's action was indeed hasty, and not thought out by his advisors, or he would not have vetoed an inaction by the Council. I assure you the Mayor is smarter and more caring than that. His staff, and the Planning Department had clearly miss informed RT, not only on the merits of the situation, but also the prevailing zoning.and the conditional deed specifics. Planner Fred Neet (sorry about getting the name wrong last time) not only did not apply the prevailing zoning law to the report, but also did not seem to know what the conditions on the deed were and that those conditions should have caused the City to reclaim the property. Of course I am sure Mr. Neet may well have had his orders from others to so misinform the Planning Commission and City Council. I am just glad that Marion was able to inform Gary, Robert, and the others so they could make an informed decision. For those unaware of the South Whittier Redevelop Plan and the power of such adopted plans let me offer some information and an example in the same area. On the basis of such a plan CM's Lisa McDonald and Jim Niland once were able to force several businesses to lose their property and businesses along Lyndale and Lake (under eminent domain) to make room for "Parking Lots". Though the businesses and the Neighborhood opposed it, there was nothing that could be done, according to the then Council Members, because it was called for in a City of Minneapolis "Redevelopment Plan" previously approved by the City Council. I am surprised that some present Council Members who are former lawyers and planners would not have pointed these discrepancies out about "Conditions" and "Redevelopment District". Of course that might be why Paul, Dan and Gary were on the side they were. I personally prefer to think it was because it was the just and right thing to do in the interest of Minneapolis, but having the zoning law and precedent on their side also must have helped. I am also surprised that a CM did not remind RT that you can't "Veto" the failure to act! Much of this problem may go away if the U. S. Attorney gets a Rico conviction handed down from a Federal Court. I believe that is how Minneapolis' problem with Ferris Alexander was solved. Did I read Wizard correctly, was she suggesting that the Feds use of tax law might be helpful in this case? I believe the Sabri case is set for a November 29th trial. I wonder if they will allow the neighborhood to come watch. I also wonder if they will allow community impact statements before sentencing? Wouldn't it be the height of irony if the present owner of Fourth and Lake, like the previous one, might face the same charges and possible confiscation of the same property once more. The statement of, "That tells you there's justice and there's God out there.", may just return to haunt Mr. Sabri. May that same "God" bless the Council Members for their courage, may that "God" bring enlightenment and wisdom to the Mayor; an yes, may that same"God" bring justice to Mr. Sabri. Jim Graham, Ventura Village, Phillips Community Planning District, Sixth Ward of Minneapolis >"It is always an utter folly to underestimate the lure and attraction of a great evil. The whitened bones of their victims litter the highways and byways of mankind's history. Stopped only by the few willing to pay the ultimate price and make a stand." (Thanks to the CM's and Omar Jamal for making that stand) - Toe REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
