The hearing that city attorney Shawn Tornow has been obstructing for years finally started yesterday;
Sioux Falls resident Dan Daily brought the case. He argues the city’s administrative hearings violate basic due process rights of residents and businesspeople who appeal citations or disputes with the city. Daily has been battling the city over a $200 driveway extension since 2006.
Â
The city hires private lawyers to hear appeals and render decisions when a resident disputes a citation. But Daily argues those lawyers are not sufficiently independent from the city, and residents aren’t afforded basic rights that are the foundation of the state’s judicial system.
If the city is paying them – how is that independent?
The process doesn’t guarantee residents the ability to subpoena witnesses, request depositions or force the city to produce documents. But former City Attorney Gary Colwill testified that the city’s intent was to create a “citizen-friendly process.”
You are kidding, right? When you say ‘citizen-friendly’ are you talking about project TRIM’s vague blanket code enforement? Or are you talking about how you can destroy someone’s credit rating through small claims court? Or are you referring to the flow-chart that looks more like a ‘Where’s Waldo’ poster then an official process? Just what part are you referring to Gary? Either you were flat out f’ing lying on the stand or you are completely delusional.
Maybe Plaintiff will give us an update in the comments section . . . .
I wonder if the flow chart will make an appearence at the trial. One look at that and the judge will declare the case closed.
I just spit my coffee out.
I’d like to comment here but this has been continued and I do not want to jeopardize my case. Thank you for your post and consideration. Perhaps, the city can learn to never deny a veteran his constitutional rights. Especially in his home town.
What does being a vet have to do with this?
I think what Dan is talking about is soldiers fighting for our freedoms which are justified in our constitution. Dan also has disabilities due to his service to our country, and one of the reasons he has the extention on his driveway is due to his disabilities and making it easier for him to remove snow. I know that is not detailed enough, BUT, I can say due to his disabilities and the fact that half his neighbors have the same extention, the variance he requested should have been approved. That’s really what it is about – what’s the harm in granting the variance? In short, the city is being a bunch of dicks.
The city does not require a permit for pouring concrete. City codes are not applicable. They force you to do what they wish, does not have to be a violation. There’s an 18 month kangaroo administrative hearings process. Nobody ever wins and there’s no appeal into court.
So they made it about the fire hydrant not the concrete? Correct?
Pardon my ignorance as I’m not aware of the specifics in this case, but the fact the city doesn’t require a permit to pour concrete in itself doesn’t allow people to just go ahead and pour concrete how they desire.
Case in point – you can’t pour concrete in the boulevard because there is code against it, nor can you pour a concrete parking pad next to the house if it is within a specific distance of adjoining property etc.
I don’t think they require a permit to install a garden shed in the back yard either, but they still have codes about the size and location of it.
Depends how you are zoned. For instance in my hood you can’t build an addition to your house without special permission from the city council, and I think it requires a 2/3’s vote. But I can build an 8 Foot privacy fence. I already have a 6 foot and considered adding another two feet. So there are different requirements in different neighborhoods.
Planning on some wild hot tub parties?
Planning? Been there, done that.