Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-22 E-Mail Subject: Regarding Council Member & 2009 Road Project Concerns Road Projec/Tom Lee Subject: Road Projec/Tom Lee From: "Julie Rieman" <allabout-walls@comcast.net> Date: Tue, 22 Jul2008 23:56:02 -0500 To: <capria@comcast.net> :t/~ - To the honorable Mayor Mary Capra Dear Mary, I have lived in Centerville since 1997 without incident. Having raised four children here and having chose to purchase my property based on taxes at the time, I really am concerned about the current rate of property taxes. I sincerely believe that some of the City Council members have an agenda and are vested in retaliating against other citizens of this city. I will attach some previous emails to support my belief. This being an election year, I hope that the Council members wishing to be reelected will reconsider their position on the road expansion project as it stands today. Centerville has been ranked in the top three highest taxed cities in the state recently. Number one in 2006 and this was before the recent road expansion project was forced upon us. I have to ask what the Council thinking is?! Being the highest taxed city in the state is nothing to be proud of. Many of my neighbors are talking class action lawsuit to stop this lunacy. That being said, I must mention Council member Tom Lee specifically and his lack of professionalism. I personally believe that he has a vendetta against Melody Meath, the woman that spearheaded the petition against the large road expansion project. I have read a few emails which have been forwarded to me and I am quite concerned with his attitude. As a sitting Council member it is definitely his duty to consider our concerns and opinions. You will note in these emails his superior attitude, lack of concern for his constituents and unbelievable condescension. The citizens will unite against this tyranny and vote every single one of you that are up for reelection out of office is this issue is not addressed. I do believe that Tom should be asked to step down as he is not up for reelection this November but deserves to go. He has behaved in a very unprofessional manner while slandering constituents based on his personal opinion. There is no place for this behavior in the Council. Please bear with me as I try to attach the relevant emails. There may be several. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I hope that you do something about this mess andlook forward to hearing from you. Best Regards, Julie Rieman 612.636.3397 PS I would also like to know who suggested an outdoor 3x3 fire was allowed as long as it didn't bother your neighbor. I could tell you plenty about that. lofl 8/13/2008 2: 16 PM Fw: City Right ofWaylEasement ~ . Subject: Fw: City Right of Way/Easement From: "Julie Rieman" <allabout-walls@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 200800:02:54 -0500 To: <capria@comcast.net> --- Original Message ---- From: Julie Rieman To: JUDY TOM LEE Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:18 AM Subject: Re: City Right of Way/Easement Thanks Tom! ----- Original Message ---- From: JUDY TOM LEE To: Julie Rieman Sent: Thursday, June 12, 20086:44 AM Subject: RE: City Right of Way/Easement Hi Julie, I spoke with Paul Palzer (the Building OFFIOAL) last night regarding your fence and tree. He confirmed that in his opinion, while a "technical" violation of the ordinace, the landscaping done on your property creates no problems for the city regarding snow plowing, nor does it create a line of sight issue when driving. Council considers his opinion when enforcing the ordinance. Though you MAY receive a letter to inform you of the ordinance and that if the city NEEDED to remove your landscaping for some reason, you would be required to do so without compensation. No action is required by you at this time all. It is likely you may not even be sent a letter, as you are already aware of this. In the future, if a citizen tells you that some action will be taken against you by the city, PLEASE don't hesitate to contact someone in a position to actually KNOW whats going on, prefferably someone associated with the city, before getting distressed. As a neighbor (and friend) I'll always try to look out for the people around me. If there is something I hear about that I think will cause you a hardship, I will come talk to you. As far as trail being built in Steve's yard, I was certain that it would not be included in the final plan, (it wasn't) it didn't make sense to build it, which is why I didn't bother bringing it up to him. There was nothing for him to worry about. As I said, I do my best to watch out for my neighbors, even those that live blocks away. Talk to you later, Tom From: allabout-walls@comcast.net To: lee_family@q.com Subject: City Right of Way/Easement Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:54:05 -0500 Hi Tom, I called this evening an spoke to Judy about my property being listed as an easement lof2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: City Right of Way /Easement " violation. I am concerned that I have not been contacted regarding this issue. I am confident that as a council member living across the street from me, you would have brought this to my attention if warranted. As you know the fence, tree and misc bushes have been there for years, with no consequence. Would you please let me know what to do and who to contact regarding this matter? I really do believe that it would be unfair to force us to cut down the tree and pull the other items out since this must be some new ordinance or a push to enforce something which was never a problem in the past. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I really appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Julie Rieman I 20f2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: for the record # Subject: Fw: for the record From: "Julie Rieman" <allabout-walls@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 23 Ju12008 00:04:18 -0500 To: <capria@comcast.net> -- Original Message ---- From: Julie Rieman To: Meath, Melody Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1 :36 PM Subject: Re: for the record Ok, now am mad! At no time did I ever go to Toms residence. I spoke with his wife on the telephone the Monday evening in question. At no time was I "fuming" at anyone. Toms statement that he had to calm me down is a bald face lie! Can I respond to Tom via this forward? I would love to set the record straight with him. At this time I am also willing to call the mayor and do whatever it takes to settle this. I absolutely stand by my version of the conversation. Wow! ---- Original Message --- From: Meath, Melody To: allabout-walls@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1 :02 PM Subject: FW: for the record Julie, This is exactly what I was expecting from him. Notice he said that I told YOU that the City was going to "rip out your fence and cut down your tree"......1 wish you would clear that up with him... because I DID NOT say that. 1 simply asked if you received a letter from the City about your tree and you said no. If you remember I told you NOT to confront Tom about that issue because it would get you involved when it was obvious the City did NOT have a problem with you but you insisted you wanted an answer. Now "m afraid this has just turned into a ... '" .pissin' match (for lack of a better word). ............. I don't know what to say or do at this point............ ... Ps. I did receive your email this morning about the issue, thanks. I have not sent it to anyone or anything... .. .1 just don't know what to do............ ..... Melody From: JUDY TOM LEE [mailto:lee_family@q.com] sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:44 PM To: Meath, Melody; tomlee@nol-tec.com Subject: for the record Ms. Meath, I had attempted to send the following email wweeks ago, apparently it was never received. Ms. Meath, I understand you have taken issue with some things I mayor may not have stated in a conversation with my neighbor, Julie Rieman. First, the statements I made did not include any accusation of forgery, though I did state that I believe the petition to be less than valid, as I have first hand knowledge that many of the issues represented by the person or people presenting the petition, were incorrect and/or half truths. If you have heard otherwise, there was a misunderstanding of what I said. lof2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: for the record - Here is what was said by me, let me explain the circumstances of the conversation as well. I guess it was Monday night, my neighbor Julie Rieman came to my house, fuming that the city was going to "rip out her fence and cut down her tree," which happen to be in the street right of way. I wasn't home, I was at work, so my wife got an earful. Tuesday after work and before the work shop, I spoke with Julie, my first opportunity. After calming her down, she told me that YOU told her the city intended to force the removal of her fence and tree, because she too opposed the road and that as we were going after you "as punishment for opposing the road project..........." I explained that the city had no intention of "punishing" anyone for anything, nor to my knowledge, were we going to do anything about her fence or tree. To be honest, I didn't realize until THIS blow up that the rock that public works recommended be removed even involved your property, it was just an address. That being said, as a combat decorated veteran of the United States Marine Corps, I don't just talk the talk, I walked the walk. I put myself in harm's way when I was a younger man and I am STIll willing to fight and die if necessary, to defend YOUR ability to exercise YOUR rights. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you or even consider your comments, but I fully support your right to express your views without "punishment" from any form of government. To say I resent the implication that a Council on which I serve would enforce an ordinance on you as punishment for exercising your rights is a not only a gross understatement, I am sickened by it. Julie also stated she signed the petition opposing the street project, primarily because she was told that the city was going to put a trail in our other neighbor's yard (Brian Way) which she thought was an incredibly bad idea. While that path did appear in the initial scope of the project, she wasn't alone in her opinion. The trail was one of the first things removed from the proposal. Julie also stated that she agreed the road needed work, suggesting that maybe it could just be patched. I told Julie, that I was certain some of the other names on that petition are there for "bogus" reasons as well. I explained that I myself was approached to sign the petition, I listened to what was said, then identified myself and corrected just about every piece of misinformation that was stated to get people to sign. If I didn't know better, I'd have signed the petition myself. To be fair, you were not the person that I spent over an hour with explaining the REAL facts, I don't recall her name but she was at last nights meeting, seated against the east wall. I also stated that I have spoke to other residents directly, that told me that they signed the petition only because of misinformation or feeling pressured to sign, not wanting to be continually confronted by angry supporters. Though most of them said they didn't like the idea of being accessed, most agreed the road needed some type of improvement. The result for ME was to view the petition as not completely valid. That doesn't mean that I believe if people were told the whole truth, they wouldn't be opposed to the project, they'd have only been able to fairly access it. All of what I said was completely true and more importantly...FAIR. The only apology I'd offer would be to Julie, who may have misunderstood any comments I made. I also expressed my opinion that it seems you and some of the other "major players" are not only be willing to create animosity to further your cause, but tend to use that tactic as your primary tool. That is something I find very distasteful. I have attended each and every meeting, including those we were not required to hold, in a good faith attempt to work TOGETHER at finding the best solution to a common problem. It is clear to me that the good faith was generally one sided. In the future, if there is something you believe I did or said that you've a problem with, perhaps you could send me an email, I'd be happy to discuss it, perhaps saving everyone a little agrivation. 2of2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: Follow Up , Subject: Fw: Follow Up From: "Julie Rieman" <a11about-walls@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul2008 00:04:58 -0500 To: <capria@comcast.net> --- Original Message ---- From: Julie Rieman To: JUDY TOM LEE Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:05 PM Subject: Follow Up Dear Tom, Having been your neighbor for approximately ten years, you know that I like to keep to myself and do not engage in idle neighborhood gossip. That being said, I have to tell you that I fmd the recent events involving the road expansion petition (and our conversation regarding it) disheartening. Although I appreciated your addressing my concern with the easement issue, I feel that I have now been dragged into something I never wanted to become involved with. I received a forwarded email written by you from Melody Meath today. I was utterly shocked by some of the statements you made as they pertain to me. I would like to address a couple of points in which I take issue, starting with: I at no time came to your house to speak with your wife. I did call her on the telephone and mentioned that my address was listed along with 87 others that were in an easement violation. She said she knew nothing about it and would leave you the message that I called. I disagree that I ever "gave he an earful", as you state in this email. To say so, tends to discredit any rational inquiry. I did follow up with an email to you that evening but you chose to address me in person while we had visitors the next day. The conversation which ensued was extremely unprofessional and made my guests very uncomfortable. In fact, they left because of it. During this conversation, at no time did you have to "calm me down" as you also state in this email. I very much resent the implication that I was in some way hysterical, as I believe that I was not. I would have been quite content with your answer on the easement but as you know, the conversation went much further. You knew very well who Ms. Meath and her neighbor were as you said they were somehow involved in creating the list of the 88 easement violations and had been arguing with each other. You also said that my tree and fence did not pose a problem for the road maintenance but one of these ladies had rocks in her yard and that the city would move them if necessary. I at no time stated that Ms Meath had said the city was going to do anything to me as you misrepresent in this email. We did not discuss the possibility that I was being punished for opposing the road expansion and today is the first time I've even heard of it. Regarding the petition, as I remember it you said that some council members had taken it upon themselves to call the residents on the list. You also stated that about 200 residents claimed they never signed, although their signatures were listed, indicating fraud. I remember this distinctly because I told you not to bother calling us. My husband and I both readily signed the petition in question and our signatures were indeed valid. In this email you sent today, you state that in your opinion the petition was being misrepresented by the individuals canvassing the city. I do not remember this being mentioned at all during conversation and I disagree with your assessment of the people involved. I do not know what the problem is between you and Ms Meath but I really resent being dragged into the lof2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: Follow Up ~ middle of it. You mention in this email that the only person you would consider apologizing to is me because I might have misunderstood some of your statements. I did not misunderstand what you said about Ms Meath, her neighbor or the petition, Tom. I think it is terribly unprofessional of you to misrepresent our conversation and in doing so, attack another constituent. It is unfortunate that I have been forced to become involved in this nonsense and place the blame squarely on your shoulders. You might want to consider a public apology to Ms Meath as it does look to others that you are retaliating against her for opposing your road expansion project. In closing, I would like to mention that it is your responsibility to consider each and every single constituents concern and opinion when making major decisions which will affect their lives. I find your statement to the contrary, quite concerning and intimidating considering your position on the city council. Going forward, if you wish to contact me, please do so via email as I do not want to be misrepresented by you in the future. Regards, Julie Rieman 20f2 81I3/2008 2:16 PM 1-- - --- Fw: Lee issue . f' Subject: Fw: Lee issue From: "Julie Rieman" <allabout-walls@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul2008 00:03:46 -0500 To: <capria@comcast.net> --- Original Message --- From: Julie Rieman To: Meath. Melody Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:56 AM Subject: Re: Lee issue Hi Melody, Thank you for all your hard work on the petition project. As I stated in our conversation, I did have to occasion to talk to Tom Lee regarding the road expansion project and the easement issues as it concerns my property. My initial contact was via email June 9th to which Tom responded in person the next afternoon. This is a brief outline of that conversation. Tom assured me that my fence and tree would not be an issue since they posed no problem to road maintenance and if! received a letter from the city, (off the record) to throw it away. Unfortunately, the conversation did not end there. Mr. Lee asked me what I thought of the road expansion project, to which I answered it was too large of an undertaking considering the current economy. The conversation became quite heated as he tried to convince me the work must be done now to save the city from the estimated future increase of 150% within the next five years. He also stated that only eight residents were actually against the project. When I asked about the last council meeting which was packed with residents in opposition, he stated that, "that was never going to happen again". This statement did concern me as a resident of Centerville, I do not want our elected council members making decisions that raise our taxes in secret without our input. The conversation turned to the petition when Tom told me that some of the council members had taken it upon themselves to call local residents about the petition. Tom stated that it was discovered that approximately two hundred people did not sign it, although their names were listed. He clearly indicated that it was fraudulent. Since I had not been called, I informed him that my husband and I had both signed the petition so they need not bother following up with us. The conversation continued to deteriorate after this as it turned to forcing residents to hook up to sewer/water. Our visiting friends decided to leave, my husband apologized to them for the interruption and Tom left. He did follow up via email that evening only regarding my easement issues. I am sorry to hear that your work has been so disregarded by the city council. Maybe we should take a look at who is up for reelection this November and vote them out of office. This disgraceful behavior should not be overlooked. Best Regards, Julie Rieman I --- Original Message ----- 10f2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: Lee issue ~ · From: Meath, Melodv To: allabout-walls@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, June 24,20087:16 AM Subject: Lee issue Julie, I just wanted to explain a little of the time line about this issue and hopefully convince you to back us up. After I spoke to you and you told me what he said I called the Mayor, which I think I told you that already. She turned the issue over to the City Attorney before the council meeting on the 11th. After the council meeting I told the Mayor I wanted a written apology from Lee. To this date I have received nothing from him and the Mayor informed me that the City Attorney said it was a civil issue. I believe that the City Attorney advised Lee not to give me a written apology because the would be an admission of guilt, so I think that leaves the ball in my court. Now that is where we are at now. What we need to do is get him to resign and the only way I can think to that is to call him out to the other council members and play on their morals and ethics and make them ask for his resignation but I really don't have anything without you and your friend that was there. It would just be I heard from someone that you said this. I've read Lee's emails to you and it seems that you are friendly with him so if he does start to retaliate against you, you would have recourse also and I would definitely back you up. Also, do you have any violations? If you don't, you don't have to worry about anything. As far as your fence goes, if they do anything about it now, it would be retaliation for this issue and I don't think the City would want to get involved in Lee's stuff. I spent a lot of hours of my personal time to gather the troops against this road project and I feel like I accomplished something and to have a council member belittle the whole process and tell people that it is all bogus is just wrong. The Mayor told me they did NOT call ANYONE on the petition so he wasn't just exaggerating he was out and out lying. Not only did he slander me but he slandered the 22 people that walked the petition and over 500 people that signed it. You know what really gets me?? Is what the petition said. The petition simply stated that "your constituents want you to re assess the scope of the project in these difficult times". What was his reasoning to say that it was bogus? I don't get it. All it did was make himself look bad. It made it look like he doesn't want to listen to us. When you take an office you are expected to conduct yourself in a certain way and talking smack about the people you work for is not the way to do it. Lee has his hands in every committee in this City. Is this who we want running our City. I hope you and you husband are willing to take a stand with me and try to get him out. Since it's gotten this far, I'm sure he has already figured out that it was you I heard this from but I'm sure you know that already. I hope to hear from you tonight. Thanks- Melody Melody Meath Senior Structural Designer Ericksen Roed &. Associates Direct 651-414-6122 Office 651-251-7570 www.ericksenroed.com 20f2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: response to "for the record" Sqbject: Fw: response to "for the record" From: "Julie Rieman" <allabout-walls@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 23 Ju12008 00:26:13 -0500 To: <capria@comcast.net> This is July 23rd and Melody has not yet received a response. At the very least. it should be addressed. Tom has behaved in an extremely unprofessional manner. This needs to be addressed and I request some time during the next council meeting to address this. Thank You, Julie Rieman ----- Original Message ---- From: Melody Meath To: Tom Lee Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 1 :38 PM Subject: response to "for the record" Council Member Lee, First off, Julie Rieman (and her guests that you made so uncomfortable they left) seem to remember a very different conversation than you do and since Julie has nothing to gain or any reason to lie, I can only come to one conclusion. If you felt the petition was "less than valid" (Do you even know what the petition said?) or had issues with the person presenting the petition to you, as a council member representing me and the City, that opinion should have been kept to yourself or you should have contacted me directly. I would've have been happy to debate the issue with you. I understand you are also a taxpayer and as such have a right to your own opinion, but as a council member and politician you also have an obligation and a duty to conduct yourself in a certain manner. When you talk about issues conceming the City outside of council chambers you are still representing your constituents and should act accordingly. For me to have to say that to you, is very distasteful to me. I'm a little confused as to what "misinformation" you are referring to. If you are referring to the "Dear Fellow Centerville Residents" sheet that has been going around that states the councils spending history recently, I assure you that every point on that sheet is fact and was obtained from either The Citizen or from council action and was verified. If you want to defend the councils actions or justify them in any way that is fine. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but to say that it is misinformation is just plain not true unless you can prove that it is. I have never created any animosity to further my cause on this issue or any issue and I am offended by such an accusation. Alii have done from the very beginning was simply inform people of the past history of the council and what the future was to bring. The people that walked the petition and the people that have been vocal about it had their own passions about the project and used their interpretation of the information they gathered to inform residents what the City was planning on doing. >From what I have gathered during this whole process is that a lot of people where not even aware of the scope of the project until they got a knock on their door. I don't know who you are referring to when you say you know many people that were in favor of this project but it means nothing unless you can back it up. When people agree that their road needs work done that does not mean they are in favor of a 7.8 million dollar project. Maybe you should start your own petition of people in favor of the 7.8 million dollar project then maybe it would mean something. As of now, it is just talk. The council has sat up there for a long time with no opposition, but you must remember when they speak out it is because they oppose how you are representing them and it is your duty and obligation to listen to them and not make decisions based on your own personal beliefs and agendas. I understand this project has been on the books since 2003. Well it was a different time then. The economy was good and people put their faith and trust into their elected officials to do what was best for them and the City. Times have changed since this project first took form and people started paying attention because they felt the project needed to change along with the economy. This called for a change in the scope of the project and so the petition began. You stated in your email, Julie "signed the petition opposing the street project". This is NOT what the petition said. It simply stated that we, your constituents would like you to step back and reassess the scope of the project in these difficult economic times. Incidentally, what part of that is "less than valid"? Please explain. By you stating that it says otherwise just proves the point that you do not listen to us. What does that mean "the good faith was one sided"? Are you saying that when your constituents speak up it means nothing? When they oppose you that doesn't mean they are wrong. It means they do not agree with how you are representing them. Did you forget that you work for us? As you state, you don't have to 10f2 8/13/20082:16 PM Fw: response to "for the record" a~ree with me but you most certainly have to consider my comments and by you stating you don't is very disturbing to me. Your whole job up there on council is to listen to us. If you feel that is something you cannot do I suggest you step down. I feel I need to address your comments about "punishment for opposing the road project." I never said that to Julie and according to Julie's follow up email to you, she states that you did not discuss this issue, so my conclusion is that this conversation never took place. As for the easement issue, you do NOT have all the facts straight so I suggest you do not discuss this issue as it is not correct how you presented it to Julie. And as for your comments about you being in the Marines? Get off your high horse. By the way, this "little aggravation" started by you representing yourself as a council member when you confronted Julie and brought up my name in regards to the issues you had with the 2009 road project petition, so in the future if YOU have an issue with something I'm involved with, I suggest you come directly to me. Sincerely, Joseph and Melody Meath 20f2 8/13/2008 2: 16 PM I Fw: City Right of Way /Easement -Subject: Fw: City Right of Way/Easement From: "Julie Rieman" <allabout-walls@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:03:28 -0500 To: <capria@comcast.net> - Original Message --- From: Julie Rieman To: Melody Meath Sent: Thursday, June 12, 20084:59 PM Subject: Fw: City Right of Way/Easement ----~ Original Message --- From: JUDY TOM LEE To: Julie Rieman Sent: Thursday, June 12, 20086:44 AM Subject: RE: City Right of Way/Easement Hi Julie, I spoke with Paul Palzer (the Building OFAOAL) last night regarding your fence and tree. He confirmed that in his opinion, while a "technical" violation of the ordinace, the landscaping done on your property creates no problems for the city regarding snow plowing, nor does it create a line of sight issue when driving. Council considers his opinion when enforcing the ordinance. Though you MAY receive a letter to inform you of the ordinance and that if the city NEEDED to remove your landscaping for some reason, you would be required to do so without compensation. No action is required by you at this time all. It is likely you may not even be sent a letter, as you are already aware of this. In the future, if a citizen tells you that some action will be taken against you by the city, PLEASE don't hesitate to contact someone in a position to actually KNOW whats going on, prefferably someone associated with the dty, before getting distressed. As a neighbor (and friend) I'll always try to look out for the people around me. If there is something I hear about that I think will cause you a hardship, I will come talk to you. As far as trail being built in Steve's yard, I was certain that it would not be included in the final plan, (it wasn't) it didn't make sense to build it, which is why I didn't bother bringing it up to him. There was nothing for him to worry about. As I said, I do my best to watch out for my neighbors, even those that live blocks away. Talk to you later, Tom From: allabout-walls@comcast.net To: lee_family@q.com Subject: City Right of Way/Easement Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:54:05 -0500 Hi Tom, I called this evening an spoke to Judy about my property being listed as an easement violation. I am concerned that I have not been contacted regarding this issue. I am confident that as lof2 8/13/2008 2: 16 PM Fw: City Right of Way /Easement .,. a councilmember living across the street from me, you would have brought this to my attention if warranted. As you know the fence, tree and misc bushes have been there for years, with no consequence. Would you please let me know what to do and who to contact regarding this matter? I really do believe that it would be unfair to force us to cut down the tree and pull the other items out since this must be some new ordinance or a push to enforce something which was never a problem in the past. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I really appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Julie Rieman 20f2 8/13/20082:16 PM