My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-08-10 P & Z Packet
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2025
>
2021
>
2021-08-10 P & Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2021 3:45:51 PM
Creation date
8/6/2021 3:45:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />When the identity of the person maintaining a nuisance condition is <br /> <br />known, notice should be provided by personal service or service by mail <br />Village of Zumbrota v. <br />Johnson, 280 Minn. 390, 161 <br />(posting notice on the property may also be sufficient). If the person is <br />N.W.2d 626 (1968). <br />unknown, publication can be sufficient, but the city’s diligence in <br />determining identity or residency may come into question. <br />City of Golden Valley v. <br />City administrative search warrant procedures must include notice to <br />Wiebesick, 899 N.W.2d 152 <br />tenants, not just to landlords. This notice must include an opportunity to be <br />(Minn. 2017). <br />heard in court. If the city, applying for the warrant does not disclose it, <br />“the district court may also inquire into the extent of police presence, if <br />any, planned for the inspection and the appropriateness of that presence. <br />Typically, absent a threat of danger, the police will not be participating in <br />the inspection within the premises.” A warrant is likely not needed if the <br />situation on the property is an emergency or a “compelling need.” <br />C. Documentation <br />State v. Haase, No. C4-00- <br />City officials need to document and maintain records of their nuisance <br />1463, (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. <br />abatement activities. Staff notes, photographs, video recordings, and <br />10, 2001 (unpublished <br />decision). <br />copies of notices will all help the city demonstrate that a nuisance <br />condition existed. Adequate records will assist city staff in refreshing their <br />recollections when testifying—perhaps more important in larger cities <br />with many nuisance conditions occurring at any one time. Consider what <br />equipment would be helpful (such as a digital camera) for documenting <br />enforcement activities. <br /> <br />X.Consequences <br /> <br />The decision to adopt and enforce ordinances will lead to various <br />consequences, some positive, some negative. Cities should consider the <br />potential, perhaps likely, impacts when they consider their options. <br /> <br />A. Positives <br /> <br />A well-written and enforced city nuisance program may be the best option <br />a community has in maintaining a high quality of life. Nuisance conditions <br />can greatly impact a community’s general livability. Cities can also avoid <br />greater long-term costs when conditions are addressed in theirinfancy. <br /> <br />In addition to the obvious criminal or social concerns nuisances can cause, <br /> <br />many theorists contend that nuisance conditions themselves breed more <br />“Broken Windows” The <br />Atlantic Online, (March <br />and more nuisance activities. With their “broken windows” theory, James <br />1982). <br />Q. Wilson and George Keiling proposed that if nuisances are allowed to go <br />uncorrected, individuals are empowered to cause more nuisances, <br />nurturing an environment in which criminals can thrive on apathy and <br />neglect. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/16/2020 <br />Public Nuisances Page 25 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.