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.
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.
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 Andy Klitzke – Ward 2 RECALL CITY HALL petition:
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.“