CC_Minutes_2010_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

20 May 2010 To: Roseville Mayor and City Council Members From: Larry Leiendecker 983 Larpenteur Avenue W. Roseville, MN 551 ] 3 Re: NCPC Appeal (Reply to RCA) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: This letter is in response to the Request for Council Action (RCA) and its attachments that was delivered by email attachment to me on May 19, 2010. I believe that a number of points need to be made to clarify what has been represented in the RCA. This letter also serves to answer, in advance, any questions that the City Council may have. As usual, I respectfully ask that this correspondence be made part of the official record before the City Council. (1) THERE IS MORE THAN JUST ONE APPELLANT. The misconception that I am the representative of the affected neighborhood needs to be corrected. Despite my verbal representations to Mr. Lloyd and again expressed in writing to Mr. Malinen in my May 10, 2010 email (RCA Attachment D, p. 6), there seems to be the misconception that I am somehow representing those in the affected neighborhood. I do not. I am but one of sixty-four (64) signatories to the Appeal (i.e., one of sixty-four Appellants). The Appeal letter, I believe, makes this particularly clear. In fact, there is another attorney kvhose name appears as a signatory to the Appeal, yet apparently; because I was the party who mailed the Appeal, agreed to retain the original signatures, and have sent numerous emails; I am the one who has been identified as the leader of the pack.' ~ See RCA Attachment B, p. 1 (PDF, p.36)(city attorney identifying the appeal as "Attorney Liendecker's [sic) appeal materials...."); see RCA Attachment D, p. 14 (PDF, p. 93)(May 5, 2010 email from Bryan Lloyd to Kim Spear stating that: "Mr. Leiendecker, presumably with the support of the folks who signed the petition, submitted an appeal....")(emphasis added); see Id. at 16-17 (PDF, p. 95-96)(May 13, 2010 email from Bryan Lloyd to Kim Spear stating that: "In fact, the Council will likely have additional questions for you and Mr. Leiendecker."); see also RCA (passim)(referring numerous times to "Appellant" as opposed to the accurate plural form "Appellants."). In fact, I have to take special exception to Mr. Lloyd's use of the word "presumably" in his May 5, 2010 email to Ms. Spear. RCA Attachment D, p. 14 (PDF, p. 93). Mr. Lloyd's unwarranted statement suggests that the City (through Mr. Lloyd) questions the veracity of the support that is reflected by the Appellants' signatures. I have to say that this unwarranted suggestion, in as much as it seeks to impugn my integrity (and that of those who spent numerous hours going door-to-door to personally discuss the Appeal letter and to collect the signatures of the Appellants), is rather undignified and certainly reflects the antagonistic bias of the city planning division.