Sylvester RECElV�D
NOV 19 2012
NOTICE OF CLAIM to the City of Saint Paul, Minnesot����--�R�
Minnesota State Statute 466.05 states that" ...every person...who claims damages from any municipality...shall cause to be
presented to the governing body of the municipality within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury is discovered a notice stating the
time,place,and circumstances thereof,and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded."
Please complete this form in its entirety by clearly typing or printing your answer to each question. If more
space is needed,attach additional sheets. Please note that you will not be contacted by telephone to clarify
answers, so provide as much information as necessary to explain your claim,and the amount of
compensation being requested.You will receive a written acknowledgment once your form is received.The
process can take up to ten weeks or longer depending on the nature of your claim.This form must be signed,
and both pages completed. If something dces not apply,write`N/A'.
SEND COMPLETED FORM AND OTHER DrJCUMENTS T0: CITY CLERK,
15 WEST KELLOGG BLVD, 310 CITY HALL, SAINT PAUL, MN 55102
First Name: William Middle Initial: A Last Name: Sylvester
Address: 1463 Midway Pkwy, St. Paul, MN 55108-2420
Daytime Phone: (651)649-0812 Cell Phone (N/A) - Evening (651)649-0812
Date of Discovery: The 180 days will start to toll when the ordinance for the liquor license is
passed by the Saint Paul City Council. Please see below.
Please state, in detail, what occurred (happened),and why you are submitting a claim. Please
indicate why or how you feel the City of Saint Paul or its employees are involved and/or
responsible for your damages.
Upon information and belief the Complainant offers the following for this Claim:
This claim is against Russ Stark (hereafter referred to as"Stark"), individually and as a member of the
Saint Paul City Council and the City of Saint Paul (hereafter referred to as"City") as the responsible
employer.
In May of 2012 the Saint Paul City Council amended an ordinance that appears to significantly reduce the
off-street parking requirements for Bars and Restaurants with liquor licenses and entertainment venues
sponsored by Councilperson Stark.
The new versions of said ordinance requires only one off-street parking spot for every 125 square feet of
floor space. While 125 square feet makes sense for a dress shop where most of the area is taken up with
merchandise, 125 square feet in a restaurant or bar can accommodate four booths able to seat four
people each. Potentially these booths could generate 8 cars or more. 125 square feet could also
accommodate 50 people standing who would generate 25 cars or more, but require only one off-street
parking spot.
These changes mean that businesses that generate the least amount of nuance parking only have to
maintain as much or more off-street parking than those that generated the most. A dress shop where
nearly aIl the space is taken up with merchandise has to maintain as much or more parking as the most
degenerate bar.
Second, another provision of the ordinance deals with closing times. It defines"restaurant" (wine and
malt)verses"bar" (hard liquor). The ordinance seems to address closing time with bars closing at 1 pm or
2pm while the restaurants closing at 12pm.
In twenty-four hour restaurants there is a lull between 7pm and 1 am, people in the Midwest are finished
eating and often in bed by 7pm. This characteristic should have been taken into account before said
"12p" closing time was included in the ordnance. Allowing restaurants serving alcohol to remain open
later than 8pm or 9pm would not be in line with the primary rational (see below) and legal basis for
zoning.
This difference has a dramatic impact on families who live near by. A couple raising two sons lives in the
house next door to Complainant. They go to bed by nine o'clock because they have to get up at 6am to
get everyone ready for school and work. They just can`t stay up until 12pm to defend their property. They
will have to trust drunks to leave their property in peace. Fat chance.
Third, there is a provision for making up off-street parking short falls when new licenses are issued, but it
appears that only 25% of the deficit would have to be made up. While this provision has merit 25% is
merely a token effort and solves little of the material problems that face residents who live nearby, of
which Complainant is one.
Under MN Statute§462.357 and RochesterAss'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W2d
885 Minn 1978). Zoning must have a rational basis related to public health, safety, and welfare. None of
the above changes meets this requirement.
This is not an isolated incidence it is part of a calculated incremental erosion of the value of Plaintiffs
home,the usefulness and the enjoyment of his property.
For the past decade individuals acting for the City of Saint Paul have granted the developer of a property
that abuts Complainant's home, land use concessions and licenses that are both unreasonable and would
not be given others in a similar circumstances. Often these are granted in direct contradiction to
recommendation of staff,the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, including but are not
limited to; 1) Granting conditional use permits and variances based on whether the proposed use is
reasonable the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. 2)
Changing the zoning classification of a singe property from R4 (One Family Residential)to 62
(Community Business) in violation of the principle of"Spot Zoning". 3) Passing several parking variances
that combine to allow the owners to operate a significant restaurant with only'five' off-street parking
places. 4) Expanding nonconfoRning uses rather than negotiating nonconforming toward uses less
damaging to the community. 5) Granting a liquor license with little consideration for the impact on the
community or Complainant.
However the process is not complete. An entertainment license, legal expansion to the lower level,
extending hours of operation and likely expansion of he building foot print and possibly gambling are in
the future.
Said developer will benefit from said ordinance and contribute to the erosion of ComplainanYs interests.
And Stark's involvement in the above changes casts an ominous pall over the area. This would appear to
be a continuation of the special treatment.
Since the beginning of this process the quality of Plaintiff s life has steadily declined for numerous
reasons related the development, including but not limited to; more business later at night, nuance
parking, tra�c, litter, noise (see earlier complaints) and a steady increase in anti social behavior.
Complainant's will be deprived of constitutional property rights under color of said ordinance(and others)
with Stark and others liable, both as employees of the City and as individual, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for
compensatory damages and because the deprivation occurred with both reckless disregard for the
constitutional rights of Complainant and with the evil intent of funding an illicit'extra' retirement account
for City employees who will receive money for which they are not entitled, all parties will be liable for
punitive damages as well.
These action also constitutes inverse takings. Prior to Johnson v. City of Minneapolis that broke some
important ground concerning inverse takings, these kinds of cases have been difficult because they have
been based the United States Constitution which required takings to be complete or at least some aspect
or right has to be completely taken. In their case against Minneapolis, Johnson used a corresponding
section of the Minnesota Constitution (Article 1 § 3)which includes the word "damage"that the United
States Constitution does not. Johnson was successful in gaining a judgment for the partial taking for
damage to the value of the property.
This process has been intentionally planned by a number of people both City actors and others in a
series of incremental steps in part to circumvent statutes of imitations. As such it is a conspiracy and
and as such not only will Stark and others participating with him be liable for the same penalties as those
who actual acted in furtherance of scheme or artifice, but everyday a conspiracy exists constitutes a new
count on each of the acts and the tolling begins again.
These actions constitute intentional torts and under MN Statue City employees are responsible for their
torts when they do not exercise due caution. In addition the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state
actors from civil liability if"their conduct does not violate cleariy established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitrgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.
Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396(1982); see also Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815, 172
L. Ed. 2d 565(2009). Qualified immunity is"immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and
like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Saucier v.
Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200-01, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272(2001) (emphasis omitted),receded from
in Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 818. Qualified immunity is a question of law and courts seek to "resolv[e]
immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in the litigation." Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227,
112 S. Ct. 534, 116 L. Ed. 2d 589(1991) (per curiam).
The highest and most valuable use of R4 is raising children and these changes along with those of the
past are in direct conflict with responsible parenting. The prevalence of alcohol, hazard of traffic, blighting
influence of commercial areas, litter, perpetual trespass, loss of privacy, increased traffic, and others are
not conducive to the safety and growth of children. Add gambling and entertainment which appear to be
part of the eventual plan. At this point a conscientious parent would not allow the simplest thing such as
young daughter sun bathing or a young man sleeping out side in a tent. Neighborhood bars such as the
one being promoted in Frogtown, have had a problem with patrons offering young people money for sex
and there is no reason that would not happen here. These are not condition conducive to the cultivation
of strong successful children. You would not tolerate these conditions abutting your property yet again
and again you expect Complainant to.
The City has made little or no attempts to mitigate the impact on ihe Complainant. It is particularly
disheartening how little the City or Stark have been willing to mitigate this situation. No buffer at all, no
enforcement of the lighted sign regulations, no permit parking, it is as if these actors are intentionally
trying to destroy the value of ComplainanYs home and impair his enjoyment of his property.
For this case compensatory damages would likely have two parts; first recover loss based on a
percentage loss of the market value calculated at the time of settlement or at the time Plaintiff intended to
sell his home. Second, compensation for the accumulated loss of use and enjoyment of said property
from the beginning of the scheme to the final resolution or as long a period as law allows. Plus
reasonable costs and attorney fees.
Please indicate the amount you are seeking in compensation or what you would like the City
to do to resolve this claim to your satisfaction.
As a result Complainant demands $300,000 compensatory damages and $1,000,000 for punitive for
a total of 1.3 million.
By signing this form, you are stating that all information you have provided is true and
correct to the best of your knowledge. Unsigned forms will not be processed.
Submitting a false claim can result in prosecution. Date form was completed: 11/19/12
Print the Name of the Person who Completed this Form: William A. Sylvester
Signature of Person Making the Claim: