Motiv Apartments - 2320 Colfax Avenue S

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mplsjaromir » May 1st, 2014, 10:41 am

Looks like a gentleman named Anton has posted the court documents online:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/221404106/Hea ... -Complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/221404690/Hea ... ort-of-TRO

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » May 1st, 2014, 11:03 am

Lol, on a "divided" vote, the city council approved demoliton. Yeah, we really got by on the skin of our teeth there, with more 84% voting in favor of demolition. In any other context that's a landslide.

So, the case is hinging on that it's a historic resource (obviously) and their justificaiton is that this house is a turning point in his transition from Queen Anne to Colonial Revival. Hasn't that claim been debunked previously, or at least challenged?

For what it's worth, here's the attorney that filed the case: http://www.patrickburnsfamilylaw.com/At ... nsen.shtml He does some real estate law and also serves on a preservation committee. I'd guess he's doing it pro-bono, but they're talking about fundraising? I feel like the Healy project is so screwed when this gets dismissed as a nuisance lawsuit and all the court fees get thrown at the Healy Project. Maybe he is doing it pro-bono, and they're just fund raising for filing fees?

degersblogg
Metrodome
Posts: 54
Joined: December 3rd, 2012, 2:08 pm
Location: East Isles, Minneapolis

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby degersblogg » May 1st, 2014, 11:22 am

I hope they try and argue that since the HPC denied demolition twice it proves their argument. The only thing that will get them is a ruling from the judge that the HPC acted illegally.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » May 1st, 2014, 11:28 am

Oh my God I'm dying reading the memo in support of TRO.

"Halting the destruction and impairment of historic resources like the Orth house is precisely what MERA was designed to prevent"
I'm going to infer the meening of this sentence, rather than take it literally (because as written, the claim is that MERA is designed to "prevent" the "halting the destruction and impairment." I assume they claim that MERA was designed precisely to halt the destruction of blah blah blah. Well, MERA does mention historic resources as something to protect. However, it doesn't define what a historic resource is, so I highly doubt that historic resources were the primary, secondary, or even tertiary consideration of MERA.

"The Crows conceded that the property was a historic resource..."
"Moreover, the fact that the Crows themselves brought an application to demolish a historic resource is strong evidence that the Crows recognize that the Orth house is an important piece of both Minneapolis and Minnesota history." (emphasis theirs)
Look, no. It's strong evidence that the property was declared a historic resource and that they were following the law by acting as such. If Crow had just ignored that and filed for demolition would that make the Healy Project's case weaker?
"Furthermore, the Historic Preservation Commission twice recognized the Orth house as a historic resource that should not be demolished as did the Minneapolis City Council when the issue was first brought to it."
This is picking nits, but again, no. The first time the HPC declared it a historic resource, and the city council upheld that view. The second time, while still maintaining that it was in fact not a historic resource, an application for demolition of a historic resource was made, not on the merits that it's not a historic resource so "na na na you can't catch me." but on the basis of what criteria were required to demolish a historic resource. It's worth pointing out here that, to the best of my knowledge, having something be designated a historic resource does not mean it is Historical (with a big H), it means it has the potential to be historic. The primary purpose it seems for the historic resource designation is to protect a resource as potentially historic while a study is done (why a study wasn't actually done here I have no idea, and Cam Gordon is also pretty confused by this).

The original filing cites some case law, that since historic resource is not defined in MERA, courts generally look to the standards of criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places for guidance.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » May 1st, 2014, 11:46 am

Basically, the way I'm reading this, I don't see how the HPC's ruling would come into question. The basis of the case seems to be that Michael Crow should know better than to demolish this thing that's historic, rather or not some other body says its OK. It never challenges the city's right to allow demolition, and therefore the HPC rulings don't come into play. The only thing at issue seems to be "is the house historic under MERA?" and that's all the court would hopefully look at.

What alarms me more about this than the actual house in question is the implications this would have for the city's historic preservation laws. MERA seems to be stricter, in that there's no consideration for reasonable economic alternative. However the oft cited Powderly v Erickson involved tearing down rowhomes for a parking lot, and the fact that something else is proposed here might influence some judge to take a broader view of MERA.

WillB
Block E
Posts: 7
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:22 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby WillB » May 5th, 2014, 3:08 pm

I attended the temporary restraining order hearing. Mr. Crow attended with his attorney. The attorney for The Healy Project was there, but, strangely, nobody else from The Healy Project (i.e. no members of its board, officers, etc.) attended. The judge seemed slightly confused by this.

When you file for a temporary restraining order, you're telling the judge that irreparable harm will occur if the defendant is not immediately enjoined from taking some action. For this reason, the judge wanted to know the soonest possible date when demolition might occur. Both sides agreed it would be at least 30 days before any demolition could begin, and likely longer before any demolition actually would begin. Because demolition didn't seem imminent, the judge said she'd rather not decide the TRO motion, and instead set up a hearing soon to decide the merits of the case in the next few weeks. The Healy Project attorney said he didn't know if that would work, because he wanted some time to conduct discovery and send someone else into the 2320 house to do another inspection/analysis of its historic qualities. This prompted the judge to get sort of annoyed and threaten to just issue an order on the TRO (although she didn't indicate which way she would rule). The judge asked both sides to confer to determine if the case could be expedited for a decision on the merits. This is when I left. However, the court's website shows another hearing scheduled for May 23 at 9:00 a.m. This could potentially be a hearing on the merits, but it's unclear. During the hearing, the judge expressed a desire to have more time to read the relevant materials and didn't express an opinion one way or another regarding the merits of the case.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » May 5th, 2014, 3:18 pm

Very interesting. How did you learn about the hearing, and where was it? I'm getting good at navigating city committee and commission agendas, but court documents is uncharted territory for me.

WillB
Block E
Posts: 7
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:22 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby WillB » May 5th, 2014, 3:26 pm

Yeah, if you're not an attorney, navigating the court system is pretty much impossible. Each case has a case number. As the pdf complaint listed in one of the posts above shows, the case number for this case is 27-cv-14-7064. This case was filed in MN state court, and you can look up state court docket activity at: http://www.mncourts.gov/caserecords. Click "accept" for the terms of use, and on the next page click the link "Civil, Family, & Probate Case Records." This is where you'll enter the case number. You should be able to view the docket from here, which is basically just a list of events that have occurred before the court. It will also contain dates of upcoming events. Hope this helps!

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » May 5th, 2014, 3:31 pm

This URL may or may not link to the page about the case: http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail ... 1616871403

Michael Crow had to pay $426 because he was sued? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, what's up with that?

WillB
Block E
Posts: 7
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:22 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby WillB » May 5th, 2014, 3:48 pm

Looks like Crow's attorney filed a responsive brief (written argument) opposing the motion for temporary restraining order. It looks like there's a $426 filing fee for the first memoranda each side files. It might be the case in state court that you pay for your first filing, and then don't have to pay for subsequent filings. It's part of how the costs of the justice system are covered.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » May 5th, 2014, 3:50 pm

That would make sense. Is there any way to get documents, or do we have to hope someone is nice enough to scan a copy and throw it online somewhere?

Anton
Block E
Posts: 15
Joined: April 22nd, 2014, 10:26 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby Anton » May 6th, 2014, 10:09 am

It would be ideal if Crow's attorney would be kind enough to send someone electronic copies of documents that are filed by both parties. As it stands currently, in order to retrieve the documents, one must be physically present at the courthouse (between 8 and 4:30 M-F, I believe), and pay $10 per document for a printed copy, then scan that back in. As of today, in this docket I can count 8 documents that are potentially interesting, so that's a total of $60 more just to get access to those. You can access and read them in the basement for free though (and take pictures with your camera phone if you're broke!). I might make a trek down there later this week to see if the Order filed on 5/5 shines any light on what might be discussed on the May 23rd hearing.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1112
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby mplsjaromir » May 7th, 2014, 8:01 am

I cannot believe I missed this hot take from Nicole Curtis, via Minnpost:
“People live in this city because of the history. We just approved Indigenous [People’s] Day because we support our history, and yet we just voted to tear it down,” said Curtis following the council action. “I don’t understand how you can do that. I just don’t get it. I don’t understand.”
Does she really think that the people who advocated for Indigenous People's Day are same people who want to preserve the legacies of T.P. Healy and Edward Orth? The last thing this city needs to do make sure we remember more rich, white, male capitalists.

The fact that she has tried to intertwine IPD with the 2320 Colfax is nauseating.

Anton
Block E
Posts: 15
Joined: April 22nd, 2014, 10:26 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby Anton » May 7th, 2014, 9:24 am

Yeah, I think she tried to mobilize her supporters to show up at the council meeting and was surprised that something else was a bigger issue than this house. I've also been generally disappointed with MinnPost's coverage of the issue as well - one article is essentially a press release from the Healy Project, the others are clearly sympathetic to those who wish to prevent demolition.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 7th, 2014, 11:34 am

I'll also point out again that her particular worldview is showing through. Take a poll of the 20-30somethings living in greater Uptown and ask them why they're living there. I don't think "because of the history" falls in the top 5 for the vast majority of people. I know some here (and NC herself) tend to think that the work of all the homeowners who bought when times were tough and renovated key historic homes is what rejuvenated the area and made it so desirable today. I think that upkeep via restoration may have played a part, but the overwhelming reason people want to live in this area is because of proximity and access, not historic structures.

Tying other works to this type of preservation seems to be desperation mode looking for any selling points to bring more supporters in (same as the whole unyielding "demolition is NEVER green" argument).

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby FISHMANPET » May 7th, 2014, 11:46 am

If I were to concede that this building was historical, I could still only concede that it's architecturally historical. I don't think anybody lives anywhere because of architectural history, there needs to be some kind of actual history underlining it. An architecturally house is only historic within its own context. It created its own history.

Snelbian
Rice Park
Posts: 463
Joined: March 2nd, 2013, 9:03 pm
Location: Merriam Park

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby Snelbian » May 7th, 2014, 1:03 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:I cannot believe I missed this hot take from Nicole Curtis, via Minnpost:
“People live in this city because of the history. We just approved Indigenous [People’s] Day because we support our history, and yet we just voted to tear it down,” said Curtis following the council action. “I don’t understand how you can do that. I just don’t get it. I don’t understand.”
Does she really think that the people who advocated for Indigenous People's Day are same people who want to preserve the legacies of T.P. Healy and Edward Orth? The last thing this city needs to do make sure we remember more rich, white, male capitalists.

The fact that she has tried to intertwine IPD with the 2320 Colfax is nauseating.
I thought Minneapolis approved Indigenous People's Day because a huge chunk of our history is horrific and consists of a series of massively bad decisions.

Just like Healy, I guess?

uptowner
City Center
Posts: 30
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 11:10 am

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby uptowner » May 7th, 2014, 8:26 pm

Mr. Crow provided me with the documents they filed with the court and I uploaded them.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/222790071/Mem ... ion-to-TRO

http://www.scribd.com/doc/222790243/Affidavit

WestCoastDude
Block E
Posts: 14
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 8:19 pm

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby WestCoastDude » May 8th, 2014, 12:24 am

Healy Group is making a last desperate effort that will probably be dismissed by the judge as a nuisance lawsuit. It's obvious that the Healy Group is all about the "all or nothing" mentality, true believers who cannot differentiate between what is authentic and what is a shell of the past. Their fetish over TP Healy is ridiculous, bordering on idolatry.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1354
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: 2316-2320 Colfax Apartments

Postby Tcmetro » June 6th, 2014, 3:19 pm



Return to “Minneapolis - South, Southwest, and Uptown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest