CORRECTION: This article has been modified to correct the location of Lansing's shop which sits on the southwest corner of Sixth and Division streets.
NORTHFIELD — A no trespassing order, served by police Wednesday on Lee Lansing, says the former mayor must close his Division Street garden center.
Lansing has been given until Sunday to remove his personal belongings, mostly bedding plants and hanging baskets.
For years, Lansing operated a hardware store at the other end of the block, but last spring closed that store and opened the new shop at the southwest corner of Division and Sixth streets.
Lansing sold bedding plants last spring and fall. Community Development Director Brian O’Connell said the city allowed the then-mayor to conduct business on the property for a short period of time, but never issued him a permit.
“There was a degree of tolerance,” said O’Connell.
By late fall, the agreement with the city expired, and it asked that the sales discontinue.
The sale of flowers and garden supplies is not allowed in the downtown business district, except temporarily as an auxiliary use to a permitted business, said O’Connell. Lansing last year had a temporary greenhouse structure on the site, which he removed after the city threatened to charge his son with violating city ordinances.
Lansing’s son and daughter-in-law owned the property, which went into foreclosure in early fall.
The new property owner, Voyager Bank, asked the police to issue a no trespass order against Lansing.
Voyager Bank President and CEO Scott Weaver declined to comment, saying it was a private matter.
The bank is in negotiations with Jerry Anderson, a local entrepreneur interested in buying the property. Anderson said Friday he told Lansing he could open the shop.
Lansing on Friday said he believed the matter was resolved in December, but wouldn’t elaborate on what that meant or whether he would comply with the no trespassing order.
At an April meeting between Lansing and City Administrator Joel Walinski, Lansing says he notified Walinski of his plans to reopen. “He (Walinski) didn’t say yes or no,” said Lansing.
Walinski had a different opinion of their meeting, saying that he told Lansing that he needed to get permission from the property owner to operate, at which time the city would again allow the business temporarily. Or, Walinski said he told Lansing, the property owner could request the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for the site or ask for city zoning ordinances to be modified. Any of those scenarios could allow Lansing to open for business, Walinski said.
Ultimately, Walinski said, it’s about who owns the property.
“Lee isn’t (the property owner),” he said, “and is out of the picture.”
— Suzanne Rook can be reached at srook@northfieldnews.com or 645-1113.
Registered members who identify themselves by name are authorized to automatically post comments to stories. Readers who wish to remain anonymous submit comments to a pending queue, where they will be reviewed for approval within 24 hours of their submission. To determine the author of a comment, click on the user name. Those who identify themselves will be given broader boundaries to express their opinion. Only those anonymous comments that contribute to the conversation in a thoughtful, respectful, civil manner will be approved. The decision to approve or reject a comment is a subjective one and is ours alone. Authors of rejected comments will receive an email response.
By: AndyCasius on 5/9/09
Mr. Lansing does not have to play by the rules or obey the laws. Somehow he gets away with it. What news do you have on the day in court he was scheduled for yesterday?
Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 7, '09): “Accuracy is our highest priority.” Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 8, '09): “Lansing...opened the new shop at the southeast corner of Division and Sixth streets.” So Lansing is conducting his enterprise in the corner of the Econofoods parking lot? Now that is some award winning reporting. LOL.
By: Martha on 5/9/09
Give it a rest Pietro!!!!! THis article has nothing to do with Suzy Rook. Th facts are your buddy Lansing continues to ignore and violate the law. He is arrogant and dismissive. I find his behavior appalling. He should go to jail. THis, once again blatant disregard for the law certainly cannot be helpful to his pending litigation. One more thing, I am not so cowardly as to use an alias to express my opinions.
By: pietro on 5/9/09
Take a breath, Martha (that's the first time phlegm has ever spewed forth from my monitor.)
The form of this article, has everything to do with Suzy Rook, sloppy and incomplete reporting, assertions expressed without attribution, and statements made by interested parties taken at face value, i.e., without substantiation, without any reporting that would support or discount said assertions.
Lansing is not my buddy. I am merely civically involved in observing both the practice and conduct of the sole local commercial news operation, and the city government. To my understanding Lansing is no where involved as a litigant, although he is currently defending himself in a prosecution. Thankfully the judge in that case knows that these circumstances have nothing to do with those charges. The fact that you wrongfully and willfully conflate them makes you no exemplar of jurisprudence; in fact just the opposite.
Pseudonymity is perfectly within the bounds of the Northfield News' terms of use. Your online conduct is suggestion enough of why people with business interests in Northfield would choose that option from the News' own accepted terms. Have you ever criticized pseudonymity as a practice when other pseudonymous commenters support, generally, your positions? What is cowardly is to make/draw specious assertions/conclusions in full voice and then fall quietly back on what is already obvious, it is nothing more than your venally expressed, and unsubstantiated, opinion.
If you had the ability to engage in a substantive exchange you might identify where in the city code it states, “The sale of flowers and garden supplies is not allowed in the downtown business district..,” since Suzy Rook fails to do so. First, the downtown district is C1. Lansings operation is in the downtown fringe district, or C2. You tell me where in the zoning regs the exclusion of “flowers and garden supplies” is codified?
Finally, I stand by the reporting below: Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 7, '09): “Accuracy is our highest priority.” Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 8, '09): “Lansing...opened the new shop at the southeast corner of Division and Sixth streets.” So Lansing is conducting his enterprise in the corner of the Econofoods parking lot? Now that is some award winning reporting. LOL.
Suzy set the bar, I merely reminded her of it. In recent exchanges with the News' management it was expressed to me that they don't mind even a little being held to a high standard. So I am.
By: EditorJaci on 5/9/09
AndyCasius, the Lansing hearing was attended yesterday by a reporter from the Faribault Daily News. He was there more than two hours, had to leave for a short time, and then returned. In that time, issues related to discovery and other motions were discussed, as well as how and by when further briefs would need to be submitted. It was my call that in a typical court case, this minutae of a criminal trial would not be the kind of thing the paper reports on normally, so therefore we weren't going to do it here. Hope that helps.
"....sloppy and incomplete reporting, assertions expressed without attribution, and statements made by interested parties taken at face value, i.e., without substantiation, without any reporting that would support or discount said assertions."
Where are the assertions without attribution? Every statement I read is attributed to Lansing, Walinski, Anderson or O'Connell. What am I missing?
Pietro, your only complaint that seems valid to me is the error on the "southeast corner" when it is actually the southwest corner. This is a mere trivial mistake, which has no bearing on the meaning of the story.
Your beef about where the selling flowers downtown is codified may be legit--I don't know. But your questions should be directed at O'Connell--who gave the info to Ms. Rook.
And Jaci, when is Lansing's next day in court--and what will it entail? Has an actual trial date been set?
What you consider trivial I worry may be emblematic. The statement that “Accuracy is our highest priority” is Suzy's own declaration. It may be a third-grade geography mistake, but if the Managing Editor of the News writes it and then reads over it (did any other editors approve it?) then what even more substantive issues of accuracy or news judgement may be beyond their ken. “A no trespassing order, served by police Wednesday on Lee Lansing...” This makes the order sound like spaghetti and Lansing the plate. Lansing's toothbrush is among his “personal belongings;” the “bedding plants and hanging baskets” are his retail inventory. “Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site” and “The new property owner, Voyager Bank, asked the police to issue a no trespass order against Lansing.” Both of these statements infer Voyager Bank as their source yet the article clearly states that “Voyager Bank...declined to comment...” to the Northfield News. The bank may have said it, but they didn't say it to the News. Hence inclusion of these comments can only come after someone else, a third party, ascribed them to the Bank, the proper attribution lies with that unidentified entity, not the bank. Why is it omitted? Re: selling flowers downtown. If the Northfield News reports O'Connell's assertion, as they do, without question or reservation, relying wholly on attribution to establish veracity, then that is a statement taken at face value with out substantiation. If it proves to be in error, or less black and white than the News would make it, I as a consumer hold the News responsible. The code is not lengthy or dense, here is a link to it:
The zoning regs are chapter 34, article VIII. The downtown (zone C1) is sec.34-846. The down town fringe zone (zone C2, which includes 600 S. Division) is sec.34-847. NOTE: You will have to select, copy and paste the link in to your browser's address line. The News does not allow us to share hot links in our discussions on their comment threads. This is contrary to most practice on the web.
Finally, what permit does a retailer downtown need. Especially one that doesn't offer food, alcohol, or tobacco? What permit does Ragstock have? or Monkey See...? or Present Perfect? Where is the need for this permit codified. Are you familiar with any executable legal device known as a “no trespass order?” Eviction notice, summons, citations, a certified letter...all these are familiar to due process and might be “served.” What did the police actually present to Lansing? What if it was, say, a photocopy, of unknown generations of duplication, of a document that would not have been official even in its original form? How would the Northfield Police have come in to possession of such an unenforceable document? And under color of what authority would they attempt to present it? It is a bowl of spaghetti, and there are too many loose ends that the News failed to run down. And I suspect they know it. But they are in tough spot, they don't even know up, down, left, right on a map.
By: AndyCasius on 5/10/09
Good grief. I would assume folks are more interested in the court news than Mr. Lansing's flowers. This man has cost the city and many folks mega money and respect. Tell the news. What happened, will it go to trial etc? How much more money will he cost the taxpayers and what was in those 5000 pages it took so long to review.
By: FLY on 5/10/09
Pietro, what is emblematic here is the torturous lengths you go to to deflect attention from Lansing's wrongdoings to completely irrelevant criticisms of the News' reporting. Again, the News made one mistake--substituting "southeast" for "southwest". That's all you have on the News, and that's pretty thin gruel.
(A cap tipping to you for the spaghetti analogy. Irrelevant? Yes, but amusing.)
Thanks for taking the time to share your criticisms. As for characterizing the “tortuous length” and “thin gruel” of “completely irrelevant criticisms;” well, the first comment below critical of the News was actually very brief, and the gruel plenty thick enough to stick to their wall and compel them to paste a correction over it. They deserve credit for the mea culpa, and I give it to them; but, again, they set the bar for themselves, I merely held them to it.
For me, the locus isn't “to deflect attention from Lansing's wrongdoings” but to focus on a better brand and practice of journalism. I think the community deserves it, maybe you don't. You asked me to elaborate, and I did. I don't know how you expect me to respond respectfully to your query, to elaborate, with out going to some “length.” Since you find the qualified analysis too laborious a read I am willing to accede and strive for brevity.
How about this: The “bearing on the meaning of ” *any* given story is that if the News cannot be counted on to report accurately the most fundamental of facts --who, what, when, where-- then why should we trust they will do a better job when a story becomes more complex.
From my seat in the stands this would be akin to accepting the following, “Wow, this pitcher is horrible in single A ball, but I bet he'd lead the league in no-hitters if we just put him in the Bigs.” What think, now?
By: FLY on 5/10/09
Peitro, speaking of "tortuous"...you wrote:
"For me, the locus isn't “to deflect attention from Lansing's wrongdoings” but to focus on a better brand and practice of journalism."
Color me skeptical, but I'm doubtful that your journalistic concerns just happened to boil over after reading a misstated, easily correctable address in the News. Admittedly, I could be wrong, but I simply don't believe that your animus just happened to coincide with a story that just happened to be about the former mayor.
And if you wish to hold the News to a high standard, why not hold yourself to high standards? You wrote: "assertions without attribution". Where specifically are the "assertions without attributions"? There are none.
Again, to beat a dead horse...(and if I were to beat a dead horse, I would make sure it was my dead horse, and not someone else's dead horse on someone else's property)--you focus on the trivial...a minor address misstatement and even more trivial:
"Lansing's toothbrush is among his “personal belongings;” the “bedding plants and hanging baskets” are his retail inventory." Again, splitting hairs, ...irrelevant hairs.
Not withstanding the protests of Lansing's tiny diminishing band of reality-immune cultists, we're getting excellent journalism from the News.
You are wrong. While you wrangle with your belief system, I'll deal with the facts.
On standards: I offer premise, argument and conclusion. This is good form. You complain about tortuous length, but respond not a wit to the substance of argument. You appeal for brevity, I provide and still you don't respond in any authentic fashion. Quit playing rhetorical three card monte.
On attribution: asked and answered, FLY...I re-post from below:
“Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site” and “The new property owner, Voyager Bank, asked the police to issue a no trespass order against Lansing.” Both of these statements infer Voyager Bank as their source yet the article clearly states that “Voyager Bank...declined to comment...” to the Northfield News. The bank may have said it, but they didn't say it to the News. Hence inclusion of these comments can only come after someone else, a third party, ascribed them to the Bank, the proper attribution lies with that unidentified entity, not the bank. Why is it omitted?
I repeatedly do you the courtesy of responding to your questions, you return no such favor.
As I illustrated its not trivial to the standards of a profession, if its fundamental to its practice. “Who, what, when, where,” is Journalism 101...no, Intro to Journalism. So, is this an isolated occurrence? Survey says: Sadly, no.
Correction: Dec 3, 08 Reporter: Rook Correction: Dec 8, 08 Reporter: Rook Correction: Jan 7, 09 Reporter: Rook Correction: Feb 4, 09 Reporter: Rook Correction: Feb 10, 09 Reporter: Rook Correction: Feb 18, 09 Reporter: Rook Correction: May 8 ,09 Reporter: Rook
This is the -incomplete- list from inside of the last six months. At this pace, by the end of the year, there may be more corrections than awards on that trophy shelf. As for high standards, we pay the Northfield News for a deficient product, someone should seriously consider offering an alternate source of news to the community. The Northfield News interject themselves into the public arena by choice, to profit; subject to all of the attendant scrutiny, accolade and criticism. They shouldn't do it if they can't hack it. No pun intended.
By: tensluv on 5/10/09
Hmmmm. If the Northfield News is such a deficient organization, how in the world did it ever win the Mills Trophy from the Minnesota Newspaper Association as the top Minnesota weekly newspaper, winning out over 2400 entries earlier this year? Bribery?
By: EditorJaci on 5/11/09
Pietro, The Northfield Police told us who asked for the no trespass order. As with any other such complaint, we would have no reason to doubt the police when they say Voyager Bank asked for it. If you have verifiable evidence that contradicts that, what is it? As for Suzy’s errors, nobody wants to see mistakes in the paper, least of all Suzy. But those errors cover roughly 26 weeks, we’ll say 25 and give Suzy a vacation; over that time frame Suzy would’ve written close to 270 stories and briefs (far more of the former than the latter). Seven errors in 270 items puts Suzy’s “batting average,” to continue the baseball metaphor, at about .974, definitely big leagues in my book.
By: NotYou on 5/11/09
Thank you, MEJaci. It's funny that Pietro's pomposity only serves to make him look like a bigger fool when so neatly dispatched. He's sadly digging for errors and takes a merely ambiguous attribution and tries to blow it up into some sinister smear campaign.
Pietro - the police were asked by the bank to issue the no trespass order, then the police told the News this. Let's hear your legal spin on this evil plot. Then let's hear how Rook's location error and ambiguous attribution somehow indicates Lansing is yet again an innocent man being beaten down by conspiratorial forces.
If Lansing punched you in the face, you'd say he was innocent because you never should have had a face in the first place.
By: Martha on 5/11/09
Why pick on Suzy or the NNEWS? They are NOT the issue. Lansing is once again ignoring and breaking the law. THis is fact that cannot be ignored.
By: momof5 on 5/11/09
Wow.... What more is there to say? As for Pietro, it seems you have a whole lot of time on your hands to correct other people's errors. This is a shame. Lansing put himself out there to be ridiculed. No one did it for him and he stands alone - as he should. In reading the words that you write, I whole heartedly admit that your education level is far ahead of mine, however the bottom line is really about understanding the issue at hand. I believe I understand it one way, but you are here to contradict the actions of everyone else and have nothing more to offer than a bias opinion. Blame who you feel you need to blame, but maybe also look within yourself and find that shred of dignity and stop rubbing the "human errors" of others in their face. I don't know Suzy Rook - but she must have a backbone to listen to the never ending criticism coming from you. Lansing is the source here, and Lansing needs to grow up and/or come down to the level of the other citizens in Northfield and realize that he really is no better than anyone else.
By: ndfg on 5/11/09
.."The new property owner, Voyager Bank, asked the police to issue a no trespass order against Lansing.
Voyager Bank President and CEO Scott Weaver declined to comment, saying it was a private matter."...
PRIVATE MATTER--get it? Private, personal, the banks practice of confidentiality.
Thanks for the data...since you want to “continue the baseball metaphor” I'll run with it. And since you acknowledge we're talking errors, that .974 is the reporter's fielding percentage not batting average. A catcher who turns one out of every forty pitches into a passed ball is committing close to three errors per game. Look at the instance of the first six corrections, occurring over ten weeks. Using your terms, Jaci, that takes the percentage down to .945 (two errors per forty pitches/six errors per game.) Or just the first two corrections, in the same week, percentage: .815 (more than 7 errors per forty pitches/more than twenty errors per game!) What stories were being covered under these corrections? The liquor store, the city's missing millions, Annexation, Way Park, and Lansing; arguably among the most talked about municipal stories on this reporters beat. So, not only is this percentage bad, but it's worst in the clutch. And it's the worst on the team.
Thanks for clarifying, to some degree, the sloppy attribution. There is an unmistakable difference between, “Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site” and “Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site, say Northfield Police.” Cumbersome yes, but I left it chunky to make the point. But I'm still troubled (first of all, sound style would normally require a name –not in a headline, but in your further reporting, offered below.) If the Northfield Police said that to me, I would follow-up with, “To whom at the bank did you speak?” Did you, the News that is, follow up? What was the response? And then we are again stuck up against the reporting wall of “Voyager Bank...declined to comment...” You say, “we would have no reason to doubt the police when they say Voyager Bank asked for it.” But by attributing the information to the police you are actually saying something more, you are saying that the Voyager Bank asked the police for the “no trespass order” (whatever that is.) So is this the take away: The Northfield News will report as fact with slim attribution any plausible but unverified claim made by any single, nominally credible source. I thought the standard in journalism was independent verification by two separate sources. This reporting is still in limbo, and requires more thorough verification, on your part, to make it whole. If you've done the work present it, otherwise by keeping it simple you're relying on assumption, not reporting. Others may consider this minutiae -precise yes, trivial no- as a matter of sound journalistic practice you and I know better.
By: AnneBretts on 5/12/09
Ah, Pietro, how nice to have your anonymity as a shield to protect your own work from scrutiny. Let's just hope you're not a surgeon or a demolitions expert. As usual, you make some good technical points, but you're just doing so in a failed attempt to hide the elephant in the room. Lansing doesn't have any legal control of the property. Apparently he has an agreement with someone who has no legal control of the property. Police records are public and the police have confirmed that the bank has had them serve notice on Mr. Lansing. The bank official's decision to decline comment doesn't seal a public record or require the police to decline comment, any more than Mr. Lansing's refusal to comment on his many traffic violations and other legal prosecutions make them a private matter. (I believe the same applies to your friend, Mr. Summa and his efforts to paint his theft of public documents as a private matter. Seems once again you are on the wrong side of legal precedent.) You're trying to create confusion over a really simple situation. It really doesn't matter whether the folks at City Hall like Mr. Lansing or hate his guts. The law's the law. He doesn't own the land and doesn't have permission of the owner to be there. Your interest in mitigating circumstances for Mr. Lansing is quite amazing, since you hold the folks at City Hall and the News to such withering and unforgiving standards. But then, I guess there's no real harm done. When it comes to credibility in news, the standard is that readers are smart enough to consider the source. You and the mayor have had years to make your case, and it seems the mayoral primary proved a decisive referendum on your credibility, or lack of it.
By: coruption on 5/12/09
Does this ranting & raving ever stop? Suzy needs to stop getting her information from her buds at City Hall, and especially from Mr. O'Connell and meeting him for drinks or having lunch with her buds there in which she holds some "mutual ties". A reporter should be UNBIAS and report the truth ONLY and surely not discussing NFLD with non-nfld residents/staff. The City needs to focus on helping businesses (no matter who they are or who owns the building) and surely not running them out of town or to Dundas. As far as Mr. Lansing goes...when is enough enough? NFLD News needs to report the News and not pull headlines out of their rear end. I did not realize selling plants is against the law. As far as comments by Andy, play by the rules??? Please...what in the world did this man get away with?
By: NotYou on 5/12/09
LOL, Pietro. Keep digging. You've almost convinced everyone that Lansing did nothing wrong. Again. Everyone understand what Pietro expects you to believe - because the News reported that Lansing's garden store was on the wrong corner(!!!!!), Lansing is once again blameless!! Makes sense. Pietro would also like you to believe that the police lied to the Northfield News and that someone conspired to shut him down. Not the bank.
Pietro wants everyone to believe that Lee Lansing, despite everything that just keeps happening to him, is an innocent victim of the evil city and municipal employees that Pietro can never seem to name.
Pietro, your loyalty to Lansing is honorable, but your defense here is desperate and continues a pattern of enabling. He's never going to take responsibility for his problems if you and four other people in town keep deflecting that responsibility.
I was born and raised in Northfield. I liked and trusted Lee Lansing my whole life and voted for him for mayor. He severely betrayed that trust. He betrayed the trust of .974 of Northfield. That's a really high fielding percentage.
By: Patrick_Enders on 5/12/09
Boy, there's a lot of irrelevant nonsense being posted in this comment section.
Thank you, Suzy and Jaci, for this timely piece of relatively straightforward reporting.
My apologies and sympathies for the ridiculous abusive treatment you are receiving from your anonymous critics.
Keep up your good work!
By: fairandbalanced on 5/12/09
What is very obvious is that Pietro has a serious axe to grind with the Northfield News. Usually every time they publish factual, truthful, informative articles about the escapades of Victor Summa and Lee Lansing. Who do we know that would be sooo upset that we, the public would actually get to find out the truth about what these two are up to? I can't possibly imagine who it could be?
Pietro is defending Lee Lansing's blatant disregard for law and order and seems to be seeking some kind of anarchy, where some people get to do whatever they want and then try to control the press to their own ends. How embarassing and pathetic! Squatting on someone else's property illegally and selling plants to innocent people that don't know what's going on. I actually almost feel sorry for him.
Pietra will say that all she's doing is pointing out that the News was inaccurate. Come on Pietra, you're smart enough to know that nobody out here is that stupid.
What this is all about after all, is trying to intimidate and harass the press into not telling us what's going on. It's an attempt to control the press and suppress the disemination of information to the public. Like Ray Cox advancing his own property and then saying that if he ran the Northfield News, things would be different, after the news printed an absolutely factual article about what he did on the safety center selection committee. Yep, things would be different all right, the powerful people in town would do whatever they wanted, and nobody would challenge them, or know what they were doing.
If it wasn't for the Northfield News, we wouldn't have found out about any of this, and most of the other interesting stuff that goes on in town, which is how the Summas and Lansing want it. Keep printing it gang, the more they get in your face and scream and yell and try to undermine our right to a free press, the more you need to print the truth! Right Pietro, never, never, ever stop the fight to stop suppression of information from the public!!!!! I think it was Ms. Summa who said something very much like that on locally grown. Well said Ms Summa.
By: fairandbalanced on 5/12/09
Wow, things are really groaning over at the LOGROAN. If I'm not mistaken, did Norm Butler and Kiffi Summa say that they wouldn't have any issue if somebody showed up in the parking lot of their building(s), or on the deck of the Cow and started selling plants without permission or a permit? That's what I thought they were implying. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that sure would be generous of them.
And that they wouldn't call the police on such persons because that would be harrassing Northfield's citizens? That's what I thought I read. Also that if the city took actions to shut down such a business, it would have to be because certain city staff (maybe having never met said individuals) must have some type of grudge or blood feud with those people, not because they were breaking the law. Well why the heck didn't Mr Lansing just move it all down to the Cow or the back of the Summas' building? He's got an open invitation if I read correctly? Why didn't his friends invite him down there in the first place instead of knowingly letting him spend all that money and face a conviction for trespassing, with all the other troubles he has. If he's such a good buddy, why not open up your property to him instead of criticizing those who don't want him illegally on their property? That's what a real friend would do. I'm really confused.
Or was this all a set up! Encourage Mr Lansing to do this, and force the city's hand. Try to make the city enforce blatant disregard for the simplest and most obvious of laws so that you can claim they took action because of bad blood and vendettas. Knowing that the NNews would print it and then you could go after them as well. Meanwhile, our city staff are wasting their time on these engineered antics, rather than doing other things that are important to our community.
If I were a downtown business owner, especially one that sold plants, I'd be furious that Lee Lansing was allowed to undermine my business for 3 days without having to follow any of the rules or spend any of the money that I had to in order to run a legal business. Selling off plants for half price at the height of the season. The question is why the city let him get away with it for so long.
By: OnlytheFacts on 5/13/09
I am so glad that I no longer live in Northfield. Norm Butler, pietro, Kiffi & all the other Lansing fans, what kind of spell does Lansing have on all of you?
By: AnneBretts on 5/13/09
And it just gets crazier...so the mayor dragged the city administrator to a meeting with 10 Lansing supporters bent on pressuring him to ignore the bank's order and let Lansing continue to trespass -- and continue to add to an outstanding water bill that will be sent to the bank when Lansing runs into more financial trouble and doesn't pay. What is there to discuss?? The bank owns the land and wants him off. Jerry Anderson has no standing unless and until he actually owns or leases the land. The fact that the bank issued a no trespass order means the bank says there is no such agreement. The argument that Lansing is a nice person is just irrelevant. I'm a nice person and the townhouse we are renting was empty before we moved in, but we couldn't begin moving until we signed a lease and paid the pro-rated rent for the extra days. Shame on the mayor for dignifying this craziness with a private meeting. Kudos to staff for standing up to the pressure.
By: fairandbalanced on 5/13/09
We need to hear from Mr Walinski on this meeting thing? Was he pressured not to enforce the law? Was there such a meeting? Who was there? What did they say? Does this have anything to do with why the city didn't stop Lansing the day he started selling plants? Why did it go on for 3 days. Was Mayor Mary trying to protect Lansing, or just afraid of the backlash. She has seemed very hesitant to stand up to Summas and Lansing.
What's with Jerry Anderson. It sounds like he may have lied to the city to try to keep Lansing there longer? Did he tell the city that he owned or was leasing the property? that would be an outright lie! At the least, he tried to mislead them?? Isn't Jerry Anderson on the safety center task force.
This is who we have on a task force to select a new saftey center site? Between Ray Cox pushing his own property and Jerry Anderson playing games with the city to help his buddy Lansing how can this task force possibly be considered reputable or reliable at this point with people like this on it. Respect of course to the others on the task force, but who knows what political agendas of these two individual are and what games they'll be playing.
The Mayor needs to step up to the plate and restore public faith in this task force by making some adjustments.
By: AnneBretts on 5/13/09
FAB, Ms. Summa confirmed the meeting over at the Groan, so it must be true. I don't have confirmation, but I hear there's still a substantial unpaid water bill from last season, so the arrival of this year's thirsty crop gave the bank reason to act decisively. Mr. Lansing went through all of this last season, and had had since the trees removed at Christmas to get a legal lease and occupancy permit. The city should not waste more time on this. The police should shut the place down. Mr. Summa could clean up his empty storefronts and let Mr. Lansing move his inventory inside until it is sold.
By: Dundas1 on 5/13/09
No wonder downtown Nfld is falling apart. Petty and vindictive comments and behavior will surely bring people downtown!
By: fairandbalanced on 5/13/09
If Lansing was given until Sunday to remove his belongings, why are the same people who were selling plants still down there loading stuff in a pick up truck at 3:30 on Wednesday?
By: pietro on 5/14/09
Annie, I love you and you know that, but when you suggest that another downtown landlord offer Lansing space to liquidate his inventory are you challenging Brian O'Connell's assertion that “The sale of flowers and garden supplies is not allowed in the downtown business district...” I'd really be interested to know, 'cause I think you're a smart gal, does it say that **or not** in the city code? I'll make it easy for you, here's the address:
The zoning regs are chapter 34, article VIII. The downtown (zone C1) is sec.34-846. The down town fringe zone (zone C2, which includes 600 S. Division) is sec.34-847.
By: Patrick_Enders on 5/14/09
Pietro, How can Anne Bretts know the truth of your love for her, when she has no idea who you are behind that mask you wear? Come back out in to the open: the sunshine's nice out here.
By: AnneBretts on 5/14/09
Ok, Patrick, I usually agree with you. But that's one truth that really doesn't need to be brought into the light. And alas, it is but a cruel tease, a diversion to protect Lansing, who generates a passion in pietro beyond all reason, beyond the law, beyond...well, let's not go there, either.:-)
By: Uberstadt on 5/14/09
Anyone else recognize the similarities in writing between the Summas and pietro? Its uncanny.
By: Patrick_Enders on 5/15/09
It's hard to say. Perhaps Pietro is a neighbor of the Summas - one who lives on the southeast corner of the street, not the southwest.
By: Townie on 5/15/09
Reading this trash and bashing it is no wonder our city is the mess it has become. Online bickering, a former mayor who just won't move on..... when did this become such a dysfunctional city?!?!? Will it ever return to normalcy???
By: AnneBretts on 5/15/09
Townie, Northfield is a lot like the Iron Range, where people with too much time and not enough power play the political version of checkers in the park. It's an expensive game for the taxpayers here, who have to foot the legal costs, but the silliness on this site is just another round among old combatants. As for Pietro, he couldn't possibly be either of the Summas or their dear friends. After all of Kiffi's temperance society sermons on the evils and cowardice of anonymous comments, surely nobody she knows would dare fall off the path of righteousness and into the damnation and darkness of pseudonyms. Who would betray such guardian of truth? Who would want to sleep in the garage?
Email
Print
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!
Mr. Lansing does not have to play by the rules or obey the laws. Somehow he gets away with it. What news do you have on the day in court he was scheduled for yesterday?
Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 7, '09): “Accuracy is our highest priority.”
Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 8, '09): “Lansing...opened the new shop at the southeast corner of Division and Sixth streets.”
So Lansing is conducting his enterprise in the corner of the Econofoods parking lot? Now that is some award winning reporting. LOL.
Give it a rest Pietro!!!!! THis article has nothing to do with Suzy Rook. Th facts are your buddy Lansing continues to ignore and violate the law. He is arrogant and dismissive. I find his behavior appalling. He should go to jail. THis, once again blatant disregard for the law certainly cannot be helpful to his pending litigation. One more thing, I am not so cowardly as to use an alias to express my opinions.
Take a breath, Martha (that's the first time phlegm has ever spewed forth from my monitor.)
The form of this article, has everything to do with Suzy Rook, sloppy and incomplete reporting, assertions expressed without attribution, and statements made by interested parties taken at face value, i.e., without substantiation, without any reporting that would support or discount said assertions.
Lansing is not my buddy. I am merely civically involved in observing both the practice and conduct of the sole local commercial news operation, and the city government. To my understanding Lansing is no where involved as a litigant, although he is currently defending himself in a prosecution. Thankfully the judge in that case knows that these circumstances have nothing to do with those charges. The fact that you wrongfully and willfully conflate them makes you no exemplar of jurisprudence; in fact just the opposite.
Pseudonymity is perfectly within the bounds of the Northfield News' terms of use. Your online conduct is suggestion enough of why people with business interests in Northfield would choose that option from the News' own accepted terms. Have you ever criticized pseudonymity as a practice when other pseudonymous commenters support, generally, your positions? What is cowardly is to make/draw specious assertions/conclusions in full voice and then fall quietly back on what is already obvious, it is nothing more than your venally expressed, and unsubstantiated, opinion.
If you had the ability to engage in a substantive exchange you might identify where in the city code it states, “The sale of flowers and garden supplies is not allowed in the downtown business district..,” since Suzy Rook fails to do so. First, the downtown district is C1. Lansings operation is in the downtown fringe district, or C2. You tell me where in the zoning regs the exclusion of “flowers and garden supplies” is codified?
Finally, I stand by the reporting below:
Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 7, '09): “Accuracy is our highest priority.”
Suzy Rook (Northfield News website May 8, '09): “Lansing...opened the new shop at the southeast corner of Division and Sixth streets.”
So Lansing is conducting his enterprise in the corner of the Econofoods parking lot? Now that is some award winning reporting. LOL.
Suzy set the bar, I merely reminded her of it. In recent exchanges with the News' management it was expressed to me that they don't mind even a little being held to a high standard. So I am.
AndyCasius, the Lansing hearing was attended yesterday by a reporter from the Faribault Daily News. He was there more than two hours, had to leave for a short time, and then returned. In that time, issues related to discovery and other motions were discussed, as well as how and by when further briefs would need to be submitted. It was my call that in a typical court case, this minutae of a criminal trial would not be the kind of thing the paper reports on normally, so therefore we weren't going to do it here. Hope that helps.
Pietro, you wrote:
"....sloppy and incomplete reporting, assertions expressed without attribution, and statements made by interested parties taken at face value, i.e., without substantiation, without any reporting that would support or discount said assertions."
Where are the assertions without attribution? Every statement I read is attributed to Lansing, Walinski, Anderson or O'Connell. What am I missing?
Pietro, your only complaint that seems valid to me is the error on the "southeast corner" when it is actually the southwest corner. This is a mere trivial mistake, which has no bearing on the meaning of the story.
Your beef about where the selling flowers downtown is codified may be legit--I don't know. But your questions should be directed at O'Connell--who gave the info to Ms. Rook.
And Jaci, when is Lansing's next day in court--and what will it entail? Has an actual trial date been set?
FLY,
What you consider trivial I worry may be emblematic. The statement that “Accuracy is our highest priority” is Suzy's own declaration. It may be a third-grade geography mistake, but if the Managing Editor of the News writes it and then reads over it (did any other editors approve it?) then what even more substantive issues of accuracy or news judgement may be beyond their ken.
“A no trespassing order, served by police Wednesday on Lee Lansing...” This makes the order sound like spaghetti and Lansing the plate.
Lansing's toothbrush is among his “personal belongings;” the “bedding plants and hanging baskets” are his retail inventory.
“Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site” and “The new property owner, Voyager Bank, asked the police to issue a no trespass order against Lansing.” Both of these statements infer Voyager Bank as their source yet the article clearly states that “Voyager Bank...declined to comment...” to the Northfield News. The bank may have said it, but they didn't say it to the News. Hence inclusion of these comments can only come after someone else, a third party, ascribed them to the Bank, the proper attribution lies with that unidentified entity, not the bank. Why is it omitted?
Re: selling flowers downtown. If the Northfield News reports O'Connell's assertion, as they do, without question or reservation, relying wholly on attribution to establish veracity, then that is a statement taken at face value with out substantiation. If it proves to be in error, or less black and white than the News would make it, I as a consumer hold the News responsible.
The code is not lengthy or dense, here is a link to it:
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13439&sid=23
The zoning regs are chapter 34, article VIII. The downtown (zone C1) is sec.34-846. The down town fringe zone (zone C2, which includes 600 S. Division) is sec.34-847. NOTE: You will have to select, copy and paste the link in to your browser's address line. The News does not allow us to share hot links in our discussions on their comment threads. This is contrary to most practice on the web.
Finally, what permit does a retailer downtown need. Especially one that doesn't offer food, alcohol, or tobacco? What permit does Ragstock have? or Monkey See...? or Present Perfect? Where is the need for this permit codified.
Are you familiar with any executable legal device known as a “no trespass order?” Eviction notice, summons, citations, a certified letter...all these are familiar to due process and might be “served.” What did the police actually present to Lansing? What if it was, say, a photocopy, of unknown generations of duplication, of a document that would not have been official even in its original form? How would the Northfield Police have come in to possession of such an unenforceable document? And under color of what authority would they attempt to present it?
It is a bowl of spaghetti, and there are too many loose ends that the News failed to run down. And I suspect they know it. But they are in tough spot, they don't even know up, down, left, right on a map.
Good grief. I would assume folks are more interested in the court news than Mr. Lansing's flowers. This man has cost the city and many folks mega money and respect. Tell the news. What happened, will it go to trial etc? How much more money will he cost the taxpayers and what was in those 5000 pages it took so long to review.
Pietro, what is emblematic here is the torturous lengths you go to to deflect attention from Lansing's wrongdoings to completely irrelevant criticisms of the News' reporting. Again, the News made one mistake--substituting "southeast" for "southwest". That's all you have on the News, and that's pretty thin gruel.
(A cap tipping to you for the spaghetti analogy. Irrelevant? Yes, but amusing.)
FLY
Thanks for taking the time to share your criticisms. As for characterizing the “tortuous length” and “thin gruel” of “completely irrelevant criticisms;” well, the first comment below critical of the News was actually very brief, and the gruel plenty thick enough to stick to their wall and compel them to paste a correction over it. They deserve credit for the mea culpa, and I give it to them; but, again, they set the bar for themselves, I merely held them to it.
For me, the locus isn't “to deflect attention from Lansing's wrongdoings” but to focus on a better brand and practice of journalism. I think the community deserves it, maybe you don't. You asked me to elaborate, and I did. I don't know how you expect me to respond respectfully to your query, to elaborate, with out going to some “length.” Since you find the qualified analysis too laborious a read I am willing to accede and strive for brevity.
How about this: The “bearing on the meaning of ” *any* given story is that if the News cannot be counted on to report accurately the most fundamental of facts --who, what, when, where-- then why should we trust they will do a better job when a story becomes more complex.
From my seat in the stands this would be akin to accepting the following, “Wow, this pitcher is horrible in single A ball, but I bet he'd lead the league in no-hitters if we just put him in the Bigs.”
What think, now?
Peitro, speaking of "tortuous"...you wrote:
"For me, the locus isn't “to deflect attention from Lansing's wrongdoings” but to focus on a better brand and practice of journalism."
Color me skeptical, but I'm doubtful that your journalistic concerns just happened to boil over after reading a misstated, easily correctable address in the News. Admittedly, I could be wrong, but I simply don't believe that your animus just happened to coincide with a story that just happened to be about the former mayor.
And if you wish to hold the News to a high standard, why not hold yourself to high standards? You wrote: "assertions without attribution". Where specifically are the "assertions without attributions"? There are none.
Again, to beat a dead horse...(and if I were to beat a dead horse, I would make sure it was my dead horse, and not someone else's dead horse on someone else's property)--you focus on the trivial...a minor address misstatement and even more trivial:
"Lansing's toothbrush is among his “personal belongings;” the “bedding plants and hanging baskets” are his retail inventory." Again, splitting hairs, ...irrelevant hairs.
Not withstanding the protests of Lansing's tiny diminishing band of reality-immune cultists, we're getting excellent journalism from the News.
FLY
You are wrong. While you wrangle with your belief system, I'll deal with the facts.
On standards: I offer premise, argument and conclusion. This is good form. You complain about tortuous length, but respond not a wit to the substance of argument. You appeal for brevity, I provide and still you don't respond in any authentic fashion. Quit playing rhetorical three card monte.
On attribution: asked and answered, FLY...I re-post from below:
“Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site” and “The new property owner, Voyager Bank, asked the police to issue a no trespass order against Lansing.” Both of these statements infer Voyager Bank as their source yet the article clearly states that “Voyager Bank...declined to comment...” to the Northfield News. The bank may have said it, but they didn't say it to the News.
Hence inclusion of these comments can only come after someone else, a third party, ascribed them to the Bank, the proper attribution lies with that unidentified entity, not the bank. Why is it omitted?
I repeatedly do you the courtesy of responding to your questions, you return no such favor.
As I illustrated its not trivial to the standards of a profession, if its fundamental to its practice.
“Who, what, when, where,” is Journalism 101...no, Intro to Journalism.
So, is this an isolated occurrence? Survey says: Sadly, no.
Correction: Dec 3, 08 Reporter: Rook
Correction: Dec 8, 08 Reporter: Rook
Correction: Jan 7, 09 Reporter: Rook
Correction: Feb 4, 09 Reporter: Rook
Correction: Feb 10, 09 Reporter: Rook
Correction: Feb 18, 09 Reporter: Rook
Correction: May 8 ,09 Reporter: Rook
This is the -incomplete- list from inside of the last six months. At this pace, by the end of the year, there may be more corrections than awards on that trophy shelf. As for high standards, we pay the Northfield News for a deficient product, someone should seriously consider offering an alternate source of news to the community. The Northfield News interject themselves into the public arena by choice, to profit; subject to all of the attendant scrutiny, accolade and criticism. They shouldn't do it if they can't hack it. No pun intended.
Hmmmm. If the Northfield News is such a deficient organization, how in the world did it ever win the Mills Trophy from the Minnesota Newspaper Association as the top Minnesota weekly newspaper, winning out over 2400 entries earlier this year? Bribery?
Pietro,
The Northfield Police told us who asked for the no trespass order. As with any other such complaint, we would have no reason to doubt the police when they say Voyager Bank asked for it. If you have verifiable evidence that contradicts that, what is it?
As for Suzy’s errors, nobody wants to see mistakes in the paper, least of all Suzy. But those errors cover roughly 26 weeks, we’ll say 25 and give Suzy a vacation; over that time frame Suzy would’ve written close to 270 stories and briefs (far more of the former than the latter). Seven errors in 270 items puts Suzy’s “batting average,” to continue the baseball metaphor, at about .974, definitely big leagues in my book.
Thank you, MEJaci. It's funny that Pietro's pomposity only serves to make him look like a bigger fool when so neatly dispatched. He's sadly digging for errors and takes a merely ambiguous attribution and tries to blow it up into some sinister smear campaign.
Pietro - the police were asked by the bank to issue the no trespass order, then the police told the News this. Let's hear your legal spin on this evil plot. Then let's hear how Rook's location error and ambiguous attribution somehow indicates Lansing is yet again an innocent man being beaten down by conspiratorial forces.
If Lansing punched you in the face, you'd say he was innocent because you never should have had a face in the first place.
Why pick on Suzy or the NNEWS? They are NOT the issue. Lansing is once again ignoring and breaking the law. THis is fact that cannot be ignored.
Wow.... What more is there to say? As for Pietro, it seems you have a whole lot of time on your hands to correct other people's errors. This is a shame. Lansing put himself out there to be ridiculed. No one did it for him and he stands alone - as he should. In reading the words that you write, I whole heartedly admit that your education level is far ahead of mine, however the bottom line is really about understanding the issue at hand. I believe I understand it one way, but you are here to contradict the actions of everyone else and have nothing more to offer than a bias opinion. Blame who you feel you need to blame, but maybe also look within yourself and find that shred of dignity and stop rubbing the "human errors" of others in their face. I don't know Suzy Rook - but she must have a backbone to listen to the never ending criticism coming from you. Lansing is the source here, and Lansing needs to grow up and/or come down to the level of the other citizens in Northfield and realize that he really is no better than anyone else.
.."The new property owner, Voyager Bank, asked the police to issue a no trespass order against Lansing.
Voyager Bank President and CEO Scott Weaver declined to comment, saying it was a private matter."...
PRIVATE MATTER--get it? Private, personal, the banks practice of confidentiality.
They didn't deny it either did they?!
Face it, Mr L's moving to his own drummer again.
MeJaci,
Thanks for the data...since you want to “continue the baseball metaphor” I'll run with it.
And since you acknowledge we're talking errors, that .974 is the reporter's fielding percentage not batting average. A catcher who turns one out of every forty pitches into a passed ball is committing close to three errors per game. Look at the instance of the first six corrections, occurring over ten weeks. Using your terms, Jaci, that takes the percentage down to .945 (two errors per forty pitches/six errors per game.) Or just the first two corrections, in the same week, percentage: .815 (more than 7 errors per forty pitches/more than twenty errors per game!)
What stories were being covered under these corrections? The liquor store, the city's missing millions, Annexation, Way Park, and Lansing; arguably among the most talked about municipal stories on this reporters beat. So, not only is this percentage bad, but it's worst in the clutch. And it's the worst on the team.
MeJaci,
Thanks for clarifying, to some degree, the sloppy attribution. There is an unmistakable difference between, “Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site” and “Lansing trespassing, says owner of 600 Division site, say Northfield Police.” Cumbersome yes, but I left it chunky to make the point.
But I'm still troubled (first of all, sound style would normally require a name –not in a headline, but in your further reporting, offered below.)
If the Northfield Police said that to me, I would follow-up with, “To whom at the bank did you speak?” Did you, the News that is, follow up? What was the response? And then we are again stuck up against the reporting wall of “Voyager Bank...declined to comment...” You say, “we would have no reason to doubt the police when they say Voyager Bank asked for it.” But by attributing the information to the police you are actually saying something more, you are saying that the Voyager Bank asked the police for the “no trespass order” (whatever that is.)
So is this the take away: The Northfield News will report as fact with slim attribution any plausible but unverified claim made by any single, nominally credible source. I thought the standard in journalism was independent verification by two separate sources. This reporting is still in limbo, and requires more thorough verification, on your part, to make it whole. If you've done the work present it, otherwise by keeping it simple you're relying on assumption, not reporting.
Others may consider this minutiae -precise yes, trivial no- as a matter of sound journalistic practice you and I know better.
Ah, Pietro, how nice to have your anonymity as a shield to protect your own work from scrutiny. Let's just hope you're not a surgeon or a demolitions expert.
As usual, you make some good technical points, but you're just doing so in a failed attempt to hide the elephant in the room. Lansing doesn't have any legal control of the property. Apparently he has an agreement with someone who has no legal control of the property. Police records are public and the police have confirmed that the bank has had them serve notice on Mr. Lansing. The bank official's decision to decline comment doesn't seal a public record or require the police to decline comment, any more than Mr. Lansing's refusal to comment on his many traffic violations and other legal prosecutions make them a private matter. (I believe the same applies to your friend, Mr. Summa and his efforts to paint his theft of public documents as a private matter. Seems once again you are on the wrong side of legal precedent.)
You're trying to create confusion over a really simple situation. It really doesn't matter whether the folks at City Hall like Mr. Lansing or hate his guts. The law's the law. He doesn't own the land and doesn't have permission of the owner to be there.
Your interest in mitigating circumstances for Mr. Lansing is quite amazing, since you hold the folks at City Hall and the News to such withering and unforgiving standards.
But then, I guess there's no real harm done. When it comes to credibility in news, the standard is that readers are smart enough to consider the source.
You and the mayor have had years to make your case, and it seems the mayoral primary proved a decisive referendum on your credibility, or lack of it.
Does this ranting & raving ever stop?
Suzy needs to stop getting her information from her buds at City Hall, and especially from Mr. O'Connell and meeting him for drinks or having lunch with her buds there in which she holds some "mutual ties". A reporter should be UNBIAS and report the truth ONLY and surely not discussing NFLD with non-nfld residents/staff.
The City needs to focus on helping businesses (no matter who they are or who owns the building) and surely not running them out of town or to Dundas.
As far as Mr. Lansing goes...when is enough enough? NFLD News needs to report the News and not pull headlines out of their rear end. I did not realize selling plants is against the law. As far as comments by Andy, play by the rules??? Please...what in the world did this man get away with?
LOL, Pietro. Keep digging. You've almost convinced everyone that Lansing did nothing wrong. Again. Everyone understand what Pietro expects you to believe - because the News reported that Lansing's garden store was on the wrong corner(!!!!!), Lansing is once again blameless!! Makes sense. Pietro would also like you to believe that the police lied to the Northfield News and that someone conspired to shut him down. Not the bank.
Pietro wants everyone to believe that Lee Lansing, despite everything that just keeps happening to him, is an innocent victim of the evil city and municipal employees that Pietro can never seem to name.
Pietro, your loyalty to Lansing is honorable, but your defense here is desperate and continues a pattern of enabling. He's never going to take responsibility for his problems if you and four other people in town keep deflecting that responsibility.
I was born and raised in Northfield. I liked and trusted Lee Lansing my whole life and voted for him for mayor. He severely betrayed that trust. He betrayed the trust of .974 of Northfield. That's a really high fielding percentage.
Boy, there's a lot of irrelevant nonsense being posted in this comment section.
Thank you, Suzy and Jaci, for this timely piece of relatively straightforward reporting.
My apologies and sympathies for the ridiculous abusive treatment you are receiving from your anonymous critics.
Keep up your good work!
What is very obvious is that Pietro has a serious axe to grind with the Northfield News. Usually every time they publish factual, truthful, informative articles about the escapades of Victor Summa and Lee Lansing. Who do we know that would be sooo upset that we, the public would actually get to find out the truth about what these two are up to? I can't possibly imagine who it could be?
Pietro is defending Lee Lansing's blatant disregard for law and order and seems to be seeking some kind of anarchy, where some people get to do whatever they want and then try to control the press to their own ends. How embarassing and pathetic! Squatting on someone else's property illegally and selling plants to innocent people that don't know what's going on. I actually almost feel sorry for him.
Pietra will say that all she's doing is pointing out that the News was inaccurate. Come on Pietra, you're smart enough to know that nobody out here is that stupid.
What this is all about after all, is trying to intimidate and harass the press into not telling us what's going on. It's an attempt to control the press and suppress the disemination of information to the public. Like Ray Cox advancing his own property and then saying that if he ran the Northfield News, things would be different, after the news printed an absolutely factual article about what he did on the safety center selection committee. Yep, things would be different all right, the powerful people in town would do whatever they wanted, and nobody would challenge them, or know what they were doing.
If it wasn't for the Northfield News, we wouldn't have found out about any of this, and most of the other interesting stuff that goes on in town, which is how the Summas and Lansing want it. Keep printing it gang, the more they get in your face and scream and yell and try to undermine our right to a free press, the more you need to print the truth! Right Pietro, never, never, ever stop the fight to stop suppression of information from the public!!!!! I think it was Ms. Summa who said something very much like that on locally grown. Well said Ms Summa.
Wow, things are really groaning over at the LOGROAN. If I'm not mistaken, did Norm Butler and Kiffi Summa say that they wouldn't have any issue if somebody showed up in the parking lot of their building(s), or on the deck of the Cow and started selling plants without permission or a permit? That's what I thought they were implying. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that sure would be generous of them.
And that they wouldn't call the police on such persons because that would be harrassing Northfield's citizens? That's what I thought I read. Also that if the city took actions to shut down such a business, it would have to be because certain city staff (maybe having never met said individuals) must have some type of grudge or blood feud with those people, not because they were breaking the law. Well why the heck didn't Mr Lansing just move it all down to the Cow or the back of the Summas' building? He's got an open invitation if I read correctly? Why didn't his friends invite him down there in the first place instead of knowingly letting him spend all that money and face a conviction for trespassing, with all the other troubles he has. If he's such a good buddy, why not open up your property to him instead of criticizing those who don't want him illegally on their property? That's what a real friend would do. I'm really confused.
Or was this all a set up! Encourage Mr Lansing to do this, and force the city's hand. Try to make the city enforce blatant disregard for the simplest and most obvious of laws so that you can claim they took action because of bad blood and vendettas. Knowing that the NNews would print it and then you could go after them as well. Meanwhile, our city staff are wasting their time on these engineered antics, rather than doing other things that are important to our community.
If I were a downtown business owner, especially one that sold plants, I'd be furious that Lee Lansing was allowed to undermine my business for 3 days without having to follow any of the rules or spend any of the money that I had to in order to run a legal business. Selling off plants for half price at the height of the season. The question is why the city let him get away with it for so long.
I am so glad that I no longer live in Northfield. Norm Butler, pietro, Kiffi & all the other Lansing fans, what kind of spell does Lansing have on all of you?
And it just gets crazier...so the mayor dragged the city administrator to a meeting with 10 Lansing supporters bent on pressuring him to ignore the bank's order and let Lansing continue to trespass -- and continue to add to an outstanding water bill that will be sent to the bank when Lansing runs into more financial trouble and doesn't pay.
What is there to discuss?? The bank owns the land and wants him off. Jerry Anderson has no standing unless and until he actually owns or leases the land. The fact that the bank issued a no trespass order means the bank says there is no such agreement.
The argument that Lansing is a nice person is just irrelevant. I'm a nice person and the townhouse we are renting was empty before we moved in, but we couldn't begin moving until we signed a lease and paid the pro-rated rent for the extra days.
Shame on the mayor for dignifying this craziness with a private meeting. Kudos to staff for standing up to the pressure.
We need to hear from Mr Walinski on this meeting thing? Was he pressured not to enforce the law? Was there such a meeting? Who was there? What did they say? Does this have anything to do with why the city didn't stop Lansing the day he started selling plants? Why did it go on for 3 days. Was Mayor Mary trying to protect Lansing, or just afraid of the backlash. She has seemed very hesitant to stand up to Summas and Lansing.
What's with Jerry Anderson. It sounds like he may have lied to the city to try to keep Lansing there longer? Did he tell the city that he owned or was leasing the property? that would be an outright lie! At the least, he tried to mislead them?? Isn't Jerry Anderson on the safety center task force.
This is who we have on a task force to select a new saftey center site? Between Ray Cox pushing his own property and Jerry Anderson playing games with the city to help his buddy Lansing how can this task force possibly be considered reputable or reliable at this point with people like this on it. Respect of course to the others on the task force, but who knows what political agendas of these two individual are and what games they'll be playing.
The Mayor needs to step up to the plate and restore public faith in this task force by making some adjustments.
FAB, Ms. Summa confirmed the meeting over at the Groan, so it must be true. I don't have confirmation, but I hear there's still a substantial unpaid water bill from last season, so the arrival of this year's thirsty crop gave the bank reason to act decisively.
Mr. Lansing went through all of this last season, and had had since the trees removed at Christmas to get a legal lease and occupancy permit.
The city should not waste more time on this. The police should shut the place down. Mr. Summa could clean up his empty storefronts and let Mr. Lansing move his inventory inside until it is sold.
No wonder downtown Nfld is falling apart. Petty and vindictive comments and behavior will surely bring people downtown!
If Lansing was given until Sunday to remove his belongings, why are the same people who were selling plants still down there loading stuff in a pick up truck at 3:30 on Wednesday?
Annie, I love you and you know that, but when you suggest that another downtown landlord offer Lansing space to liquidate his inventory are you challenging Brian O'Connell's assertion that “The sale of flowers and garden supplies is not allowed in the downtown business district...”
I'd really be interested to know, 'cause I think you're a smart gal, does it say that **or not** in the city code?
I'll make it easy for you, here's the address:
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13439&sid=23
The zoning regs are chapter 34, article VIII. The downtown (zone C1) is sec.34-846. The down town fringe zone (zone C2, which includes 600 S. Division) is sec.34-847.
Pietro,
How can Anne Bretts know the truth of your love for her, when she has no idea who you are behind that mask you wear?
Come back out in to the open: the sunshine's nice out here.
Ok, Patrick, I usually agree with you. But that's one truth that really doesn't need to be brought into the light. And alas, it is but a cruel tease, a diversion to protect Lansing, who generates a passion in pietro beyond all reason, beyond the law, beyond...well, let's not go there, either.:-)
Anyone else recognize the similarities in writing between the Summas and pietro? Its uncanny.
It's hard to say. Perhaps Pietro is a neighbor of the Summas - one who lives on the southeast corner of the street, not the southwest.
Reading this trash and bashing it is no wonder our city is the mess it has become. Online bickering, a former mayor who just won't move on..... when did this become such a dysfunctional city?!?!? Will it ever return to normalcy???
Townie, Northfield is a lot like the Iron Range, where people with too much time and not enough power play the political version of checkers in the park. It's an expensive game for the taxpayers here, who have to foot the legal costs, but the silliness on this site is just another round among old combatants.
As for Pietro, he couldn't possibly be either of the Summas or their dear friends. After all of Kiffi's temperance society sermons on the evils and cowardice of anonymous comments, surely nobody she knows would dare fall off the path of righteousness and into the damnation and darkness of pseudonyms. Who would betray such guardian of truth? Who would want to sleep in the garage?