Rules apply only to some?
May 11th, 2021

Last night, the Red Wing City Council had just one substantive item on the agenda, a request for vacation of an easement from Tom and Anne Wilder. The land in question is that graveled area with driveway and car on it, and a wider section on the parcel to the north, also owned by the Wilders:

It looks like the City did not provide mailed notice to landowners owning property within 500 feet of the Wilders’ property! In particular, I’m looking at the landowners with contiguous parcels, those at 1231 – 5th St. W and 1268 – 6th St. W. They have smaller homes and lots, valued lower, and they just might appreciate the opportunity to add that land to their parcels.
I’ve received notice from Tom Wilder that neighbor to the east did get part of the piece that was vacated, which is good news!
Vacation of an easement is one of those things, like “cartway” that in law school was a big snooze. Yet it’s something to consider.
Back on 2019, we got notice about vacation of the easement adjacent to Daniel Sturgeon’s property here on West. I was not pleased about this when he had bought a lot for, according to the County GIS site, “under $1,000” and that he was now asking the City to give him more land. We got a notice in the mail and so I looked into it then, and spoke against it at the public hearing.
After Sturgeon got the land, he turned around and put it on the market for many, many times what he paid:

He’s had some reality orientation since and the price is now at $25,900, still many times more than what was paid:

Anyway, the Notice for the Wilders’ easement vacation request was very different from that for the Sturgeon easement vacation request. Note the “NOTE” at the bottom:

At last night’s meeting, Jay Owens stated that Notice was published in the Eagle, but that was all, and he expressly stated that there had been no contact with the adjacent landowners, in particular, the ones on the other side of the easement. That “other side of the easement” is to the east, the neighbor that Wilder has said did receive some of that vacated property ultimately.
The Charter has this notice requirement — publication, but no mailing of notice requirement in the Charter:

The timing of the Wilders’ request is odd, as they asked for the city to give them this land some time in March, based on the dates in the packet:
Agenda Item 10A – City Council Packet – 5-10-2021
The hearing was scheduled by the City Council at the April 12, 2021 meeting (9P – Attachment).
As you may recall, Anne Wilder drew this RECALL CITY HALL “cartoon” that was published by the Red Wing Republican Eagle — it was published days after scheduling of the hearing was placed on the Council agenda at the “Agenda Committee” meeting:

- I used to trust their judgment… Now I’m not so sure! What will they do next?
- I worry that this is just the beginning… Are we inviting big problems to our community?
- Great job City Council. My once-peaceful neighborhood just started FIGHTING over your decision to fire the Police Chief.
- This is the kind of thing that makes people move away…
- Shouldn’t a City Council always work to build a stronger, safer & better community instead of TEARING IT APART???
Just wow…
Here’s Tom Wilder right at the top of the initial \ RECALL CITY HALL petition regarding Andy Klitzke – Ward 2:

To ask for this easement vacation from the City while at the same time principals in the “RECALL CITY HALL” effort is, well, tone deaf, ballsy, to put it mildly.
My Letter to the Editor about this:

My question to the Wilders… shouldn’t this easement vacation wait until there’s a City Council you trust? Asking for a handout now (for the nominal fee of $425) seems a bit much given you want to “RECALL CITY HALL.“
Xcel, cost taxation? WHAT?
April 30th, 2021

Just wow… It’s the sort of thing that makes my head burst!
Association of Freeborn County Landowners has been challenging the invasion of Freeborn Wind, a/k/a Xcel Energy a/k/a Northern States Power into this existing community.
Hundreds of meetings, filings, over the last FOUR YEARS, and we got the first contested case hearing ever for a wind project in Minnesota… the first in 20+ years of siting wind projects, and the first time a projects comes to the test, the ALJ recommends the permit be denied!

The Recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge:

The Public Utilities Commission does a perverse and contorted 180 and lets Freeborn have their way, and the public, residents be damned.
Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation
Then 17 turbines left for Iowa, but 24 remain.
… we get tossed out by the appellate court, which affirmed the Commission’s decisions and Orders.
Freeborn Wind appeal – we lose…
And earlier this week, they serve this:
Let’s see… they have open access to ratepayer pocketbooks, they’re reimbursed for their costs! BY US! We ratepayers have to pay! Meanwhile, for the public to show up, and to challenge for FOUR YEARS on this project, or any project, like the Mesaba project, or CapX 2020!, people hold garage sales, put grain in at the elevator, a silent auction in a tornado, and plain old arm-twisting to cover our comparatively nominal costs.
Our objection just filed:
NOW THEY THINK WE SHOULD PAY THEM $3,312.75?

Meanwhile, don’t cha wonder how’s Xcel Energy doing these days? Their 1Q report just out… More customers, decreased sales, and stock soars:

Hmmmmmmm, remember that Texas storm? Here’s the impacts:

Xcel easily tops earnings estimates
Ain’t capitalism grand…
Recall? (SNORT!) NO! NO! NO!
April 24th, 2021


It’s a RECALL TO NOWHERE!
From the City: YOU ASK, WE ANSWER — What’s a Recall?
They’re out today, trying to gather signatures, handing out the above flyers. Earlier this week there was a long advertisement for the recall effort:
Red Wing recall movement hits the streets for signatures
And some great Letters to the Editor in today’s bEagle – click for larger version:


“Pathetic malcontents” pretty much says it all.
My $0.02:


Note that the recall petitions they’re trotting around only complain of open meeting law violations (click for larger version):

When they say “by voting unlawfully to deny an open City Council session for consideration disciplinary action against Chief Roger Pohlman, thus infringing upon the rights of the public…” it seems to me that what they wanted was a open IN PERSON meeting at City Hall, so they could storm City Hall!
Pohlman had a “name clearing” hearing, and here’s what it looked like outside City Hall — is there anyone under 50 in this sparse under-50 group:

These are the initial flyers about the recall:




And then there’s the ~250 “Petition” that had typed names, no signatures, people living outside of Red Wing and even in Wisconsin!! Several have complained that their name was used improperly.



And some more primary documentation — the initial campaign report with significant LARGE anonymous donations:

Here are the reports, initial and “amended.” SNORT!
Chauvin GUILTY 3 of 3
April 20th, 2021

You say there’s gonna be a recall…
April 20th, 2021
6-1 vote? You LOST!
Here’s another recall, recall denied 6-1 by City Council.
Blue Earth denies recall petition
BLUE EARTH — After nearly an hour of discussion which included a report from an attorney and input from members of the public and the council themselves, the Blue Earth City Council voted 6 to 1 to deny a petition calling for a recall election of a council member. The decision came at the beginning of the regular City Council meeting last Monday night. A group of citizens had previously presented the petition calling for a recall election of councilman John Huisman. The reason given was that Huisman had violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution due to his co-signing a letter to KBEW radio station concerning removal of a radio program. The letter also threatened to organize a boycott of the station if the program was not removed. At a previous special council meeting the council decided to postpone a decision on the petition until after having an independent attorney study the legalities. At Monday’s meeting, attorney Christopher Kennedy of Mankato gave both a verbal and written report. At the end of Kennedy’s four-page report, he stated the members of the recall committee on this matter had done everything that was required of them to institute the recall of the council member, following all the requirements set out in the City Charter.“The language of the Charter, however, is in conflict with the provisions of the Minnesota State Constitution that there must be an allegation of malfeasance or nonfeasance in order to remove an official,” Kennedy stated. “The allegations in this matter do not meet that definition - so the recall petition should be denied.”Kennedy also stated he felt that if the council did accept the petition, councilman Husiman’s attorney could take the matter to District Court and would win a decision that the petition was not valid. Mayor Rick Scholtes was the lone vote against the motion to deny the petition.“I feel we need to follow our City Charter now,” Scholtes said. “And in the future change the Charter to follow the constitution.”Kennedy had stated earlier in the meeting that in the future the city of Blue Earth should amend the Charter to include language that is consistent to the Minnesota State Constitution.
https://www.fairmontsentinel.com/news/local-news/2021/04/07/blue-earth-denies-recall-petition/
This article has a little more meat on it:
BE Council denies recall petition
Vote is 6-1 after hearing attorney’s opinion on the legal issues
This is the part that is most important, the notion of malfeasance or non-feasance:
Once more with feeling… Ya say ya wanna do a recall, but I say NO! NO! NO!
