Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />T0: Roseville City Cauncil Members <br />�'R0�1: Betty Cartwri gh�, Rosevi 11 e res i dent <br />3062 W�st Owasso Blvd. <br />R�: Declining praperty and why this was allowed <br />� • �����.I� <br />� T�is is a plea for help to save the value of my home �nd pro.ert and � <br />to harrassment and indignities inflicted on me for ],�- � y Put an end <br />shall be referred to as "]ot 18." 2 Y�ars by my south a�eighbar who; <br />� <br />� <br />Chronoloqical history to assist vn��r�r�.,,�oNr�,�a:__ <br />••��•��� ��aiiu►n <br />June 1987 - Survey reveals fact that many lots on west Owa <br />8 feet off from assumed property iines. Within one da sso Blvd. were approximate' <br />down on lot 18/lot 17 boundary. I did nothing about rEmoving�anuthine�o Were cut <br />about to be taicen away from me because I assumed 38 ears o y 9 n 8 feet <br />so many lots were affect�d would certainly a11ow things to remain asathethhadabeenh� <br />for so 7ong. y <br />July 1987 - I was assured at tne Rosev�lle City Nall that I would have n <br />vari- ould take care of problem. Talking to "1ot 18" was of ° problem; a <br />an attorney to assist me in explaining to council members that a buildanl� e�itr'ed <br />should not be issued. I was to be informed (or my attorney) when thia matte <br />be on the agenda. Verify with owner is �n map of boundary line. We check r W°uyd <br />times. However, "lot 1g" and his attorney walked into a council meetin und many <br />and secured a building permit knowing full we11 we might have been ablegto ao�ounced <br />the inadvisability of this oversized house and its placement..�ta�.,�l,..� i�p...e#,��� <br />Auqust 1987 - I w�s forced to get a temporary restraining order to reven <br />15 ft, from boundary iine. Order was ignored, excavation be an. p t excavatin <br />and machine operatars left hurriedly. A hearing was set forgSept.I19871daWnhe polic <br />St. Paul. town <br />September 1987 � I r�4n a restraining order and a trial was to be set. i W <br />at thls time that "lot 18" woulci give me �the 3 feet Af the ro as certai,n <br />1eas� along my home,. He wauld not com romise p Perty in questi4n, at <br />rising lumber costs, furniture siaragep lega1�fees.keAtbondPwas�throWbout delays wit <br />�10,000 which I raised and them irr�nediately raised to $30,000, I was caat me, firs� <br />of unhumane treatment, 1 knew I was fully right claiming adverse nssessit in a web <br />satisfied all of the requirements but being right does not guarantee a win�nIand <br />have lost the land and up to �50,OOO.In complete weariness, I acce ted th �ould <br />crumb they offered me, a ground lease of 3 feet so I could use my entire sidewy <br />to be renewed yearly. (FJo human being would deny this renewal.) See attachm �'k <br />I forgot I was dealing with insensitivity, "me first" syndrome; I si ned ent �� <br />release for the leased sidewalk to end the law suit.- g a mutual <br />�a` - The new boundary along my home now had a chain link fence th <br />portion was not secured, I could see even then there was no intention toerenewed <br />just another nasty maneuver. None of my bushes were given to me, trees w �ease <br />and the entire 1ength is grassless. It is a dog run for over 100 ft. Mud reanemoved <br />washes onto my leased sidewalk, the dog contribute, to the tilth I must look attar�tl <br />after day despite payir� $2,789.62 in real �state taxes, day <br />(see picture) <br />