Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #158523

Complaint Review: Douglas County, Superior WI - Superior Wisconsin

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: St. Paul Minnesota
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Douglas County, Superior WI 1313 Belknap Superior, Wisconsin U.S.A.

Douglas County, Superior WI Ripoff, Breach of Contract, Douglas County turned over property to City of Superior per Mayor Dave Ross request Superior Wisconsin

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

1018-1024 John Ave.
Superior, WI.

During the last County meeting, where 1018-1024 John Ave. were turned over to the City of Superior, a board member stated that Johnson did not keep his end of the deal of the agreement on Mar 1, 2005, and that this property has since been a problem, and that's why he voted against returning the property to Johnson. If you check, you will see that the agreement that Johnson had (has) with the County, this was not part of the agreement. I was with Johnson when he paid his taxes (per agreement), and was told that the property would have to go to the County board for final approval, and would be turned over to him, unless there was opposition. We asked what was meant by that and the County Clerk (Sue) gave us a copy of a letter put together by the North End Neighbors, which was a letter of lies to anger the Board members, and asking of the members not to turn the property over to Johnson. It included statements such as, He told a tenant, I can play the county along for a long time they're dumb bureaucrats . Is he right? Apparently, because you gave him more time! Anyone that knows Johnson knows this is an outright lie.

LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Douglas County Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, March 29, 2005, 2:30 p.m., Room 207C, Douglas County Courthouse
1313 Belknap Street, Superior, Wisconsin

Letter from the North End Neighbors received and placed on file, expressing concern over these apartment buildings. Letter to Doug Finn from Health and Human Services regarding the above mentioned apartment buildings also placed on file.

David Stannard, City Councilor, has contact with neighbors around these buildings. He stated that they will not come to meetings, for fear of retaliation from tenants and visitors to the apartments. Group would like to see no further extensions given after March 31st.

The letter to Doug Finn from Health and Human Services was written by Vicki Drake. I'm not sure how she became involved, but states in her letter that she worked with the City of Superior Inspection Department, and the City of Superior Fire Department to have these buildings condemned due to health, fire, and building violations. The letter also states that, The building owner (Johnson) was given another chance to make improvements instead of repairs and the building being upgraded over the last 3 years the buildings have fallen into greater repair. I find this interesting since the City of Superior Inspection Department, and the City of Superior Fire Department, have written Johnson letters stating that the property is in the best condition that they've seen it in (although still needing improvements). Drake also states that she realizes several families would be displaced. However she would be willing to write letters of support for their relocation. That's funny, because Mayor Ross states in his letter that the Landlord is unable to rent to responsible tenants. So the tenants are not responsible, but Drake is going to write them letters of support. Another thing to note is that this letter was sent attached to the letter Mayor Ross sent to the County Board, where the City is asking that they allow the 1018-1024 John Ave. property to go tax delinquent, and in turn the City of Superior would take title to the property from the County. So if I understand this right, the City is asking the County to break the contract they had previously agreed upon with Johnson, then to take the property from Johnson, and give it to the City. Am I reading this right? Would this be considered a Taking?

Dave Stannard does not mention that he had a previous run in with Johnson. Stannard owns a property next to another property owned by Johnson, and when Johnson was listing it with a Realtor, Stannard walked into Johnson's house and told the Realtor that he cannot sell the property as it is condemned. Johnson told him to leave his property, and Stannard stated that he was a City Councilor, and Johnson stated that he didn't care, and told him to get out of his house. Maybe Johnson should have cared, as Stannard is now using his City Councilor connections to stir up more problems for Johnson.

Prior to paying the taxes, Johnson and I met with the Chief of Police (Superior) and talked with him about working with the Police Dept, as the building had been a concern with Doug Finn in a prior meeting. Johnson had no idea that there was opposition at that time, and didn't know that the ownership transfer was in question. He went to the Chief of Police to prevent issues in the future. We spoke with Chief Floyd Peters (who was very nice and polite) about an incident that supposedly happened at the property. Chief Peters stated that a neighbor of the 1018-1024 John Ave property called in to the police that a person with a gun was seen entering the 1018-1024 John Ave property. Police investigated and found no evidence. Chief Peters stated that while it is not illegal for someone to own a gun (depending on who owns it and if they are allowed to own a gun), it was a concern because Mayor Ross had contacted him about this incident, as the neighbor who called in the police report also contacted Mayor Ross. It was also stated during our meeting that the City Councilors have influence as they set the budget for the Police Dept. Johnson asked this neighbor about what happened, or what was seen, and the neighbor told Johnson that he didn't actually see anything, but someone else did, and he reported it for this other person. (Could this other person be Stannard?).

After Johnson found out that the property ownership was in question, we again met with Chief Peters to offer the police full access to the building, or whatever it took to rid the building of police calls. This time, he did take the time to meet with us, but didn't seem to talk as openly. During this meeting, Chief Peters mentioned that he had been receiving many calls about this property, and that he didn't believe everything he was hearing from these neighbors, but the building police calls were concerns. I then asked if there is a law to fine the owner of problem buildings, which Chief Peters replied, no, not at this time, but we are working on one. I later did a little research and was able to find a city code which could have been applied if this property was so bad. But not once was Johnson fined, or notified by the Chief of Police, or his designee. Can you explain to me why this law was not used?

Sec. 23-9. Disorderly houses and the nuisances created thereby.

Definition: "Disorderly House" shall mean any house,
apartment, apartment building, or other building used as a
residential dwelling, the occupants of which have been convicted two (2) times or more in a twelve (12) month period for disorderly conduct, littering, underage alcohol consumption, drug activity, or similar offenses on the premises.

The Chief of Police or his designee shall notify, in writing, upon two (2) convictions as set forth above the owner of the property on which these offenses occurred; that his or her property has been the site of illegal activity. Additional convictions of any resident within one year of such notification by the Chief of
Police shall subject such owner to prosecution for operation of a Disorderly House, which is by this ordinance expressly prohibited.

Upon conviction of such offense, the Court shall assess a
forfeiture in the amount of $500.00, plus applicable costs.

This ordinance shall in no way limit the authority of the City of Superior, or any citizen to abate a public or private nuisance according to law. (Ord. No. 2713, 1, 5-4-93)

Right after the first County Board meeting which turned the property of to the Land Committee, we ran into Mayor Ross outside, and he told us that there was nothing to be worked out and that it was going full forward with his project. Also Mayor Ross stated at a local meeting that the issue with 1018-1024 John Ave is a done deal. There is nothing to fight, it's over, done. These may not be the actual words used during the conversations, but the meaning was there and we have sworn testimony. So how did Mayor Ross know for a fact that the County Board was going to vote his way?

It's also interesting that in 2005 State of the City Address, Mayor Ross made the comment, This year, we made a major effort to clean up a long standing problem in Lakeside Terrace. The property had over a hundred Code violations and some of the housing was not fit to live in. With the cooperation of the new owner, great strides were taken to improve the property. They evicted disorderly tenants, removed the sub-standard housing and a major clean-up occurred with the help of our Public Works Department. Improving properties like this can only come when the City and property owners work together for progress. We have turned the corner to bringing back this neighborhood. When I asked Mayor Ross about this, he said it was a different situation, and was in a hurry and had to go. Is it because the City doesn't want the property at Lakeside Terrace, but wants 1018-1024 John Ave?

Johnson is being told that the property will not be turned over to him due to taxes. Johnson filed an application for extending the due date for his taxes, which the board accepted. His taxes were then due on Mar1, 2005, which he went to a Board meeting and asked for another extension (which was granted), as a property sale fell through for him. At that time, if the Board did not want to give this extension, he still had time in the day to make the required payment, however the Board granted a 30-day extension with strict requirements. Johnson met his requirements, the Board did not!
And then we have the SWAT team showing up at his property just prior to the County Board meeting. What triggered them to show up at this convenient time? Johnson and myself went to the police station to investigate this matter. We were told to speak with Detective Champaign (sp?). We called him numerous times, and waited in the police station lobby for 40 minutes, while he knew we were waiting for him, he never showed up. Not once has he returned any of our calls, and we can provide phone records. Why doesn't he want to talk to us? Why are we still unable to get copies of the police reports from this address? I've recently found that I can join with my neighbors and make police calls, and I can have a persons property taken away without having to show any evidence (At least in Douglas County), that's a good thing to know.
Johnson admits this building needs an appearance update, and better screening of tenants, but this building is not filled with guns and drugs like the media would like you to believe. When they have laws in place such as Sec 23-9 stated above, shouldn't Johnson be notified or fined as the law states, rather than no notifications, then a fine of $150,000 (or whatever the value of the building may be)? If you are able to get the police records, which for some reason, we are unable to, please investigate what the calls were actually for, and then tell me that you believe Johnson should lose ownership of this building.
The County Board tells us that it was a hard decision to make, which I believe it is for some, as they know they are taking the property for the City. So I'd like to ask the Board, why are you taking the property, is it taxes, police calls, or safety issues, or Mayor Ross? Please provide to me what evidence that you based your decision(s) on. Do I need to get statements from 100 people, and have them write letters to the Board, stating that this is wrong? I don't mean to discredit all of the neighbors and their statements, as I know there have been occurrences at 1018-1024 John Ave in the past, and I myself might complain, or call the police. But I do know that it's much easier to get a petition signed when you inform the neighbors that their property value will increase by 10% when new homes are built. Who wouldn't sign a petition to get rid of an old building, and have new homes built? The problem with that is that 1018-1024 is being taken without fair compensation, actually, no compensation.

Ron
St. Paul, Minnesota
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 09/27/2005 10:25 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/douglas-county-superior-wi/superior-wisconsin-54880/douglas-county-superior-wi-ripoff-breach-of-contract-douglas-county-turned-over-propert-158523. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now