http://statenews.com On Sept. 15, I reported to the East Lansing City Council on a favorable outcome in the case of Phil Bellfy v. East Lansing Historic District Commission. I recently read a guest column published in The State News, City misrepresents outcome of lawsuit (SN 10/5), wherein Mr. Bellfy claims I misrepresented the outcome of this lawsuit in my report to council, misinterpreted the decision and simply lied to City Council in my report. That accusation is absolutely false and I would like to set the record straight. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:32:21 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46166 Owned. Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:19:05 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46166 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46294 The key issue is whether or not the City Government, partnering with a Private Developer and threatening EMINENT DOMAIN, should be allowed to obtain a permit to DEMOLISH private homes that they DO NOT OWN. They were NOT obtaining a permit to do work on properties in a historic district. There were obtaining permits to DEMOLISH homes that they did not own! That is the substantive issue! Dr. Bellfy tried to stand up for the citizens property rights, and the judge ruled that Dr. Bellfy had no standing to fight it. The Judge never stated that Dr. Bellfys argument was not sound or suggest that Dr. Bellfy failed to comprehend basic legal principles. The Judge made perfectly clear that the matter that was before him was not the fairness of the citys actions. In the City Council meeting, Mayor Loomis and City Attorney McGinty suggested that their actions were judged to be fair. That was not the issue before the judge. We all know that when City Hall partners with an insolvent developer, to threaten EMINENT DOMAIN, and pressure elderly citizens to sell their homes, by obtaining permits to demolish their homes, that it is not the right way to do business. Trampling on the rights of the citizens is the way Mayor Loomis, City Manager Staton, and City Attorney McGinty do business. SB Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:32:30 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46294 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46295 Well, Mr. McGinty is certainly entitled to his “opinion,” but when quoting the judge’s finding, I think he should be more honest. In that referenced Op-ed, I accused the City Attorney of being a liar, and I stand by that characterization, for one simple reason —he IS a liar, and in this case, he put it in writing for all to see. Granted, the material quoted by Mr. McGinty, above, is accurate, but his “interpretation” of that paragraph is false. First, Mr. McGinty makes reference to the Judge’s “Proposal for Decision” —you can read the entire document here: http://www.publicresponse.com/files/BellfyvsHistoric.PDF. But what Mr. McGinty failed to do, and what leads to my charging him with being a liar, is that he fails to quote the last paragraph in that quoted “Conclusions of Law” section. So, for clarification, I’ll quote it here, in its entirety: “Petioner’s [Mr. Bellfy’s] August 12, 2009 brief asserts that the city of East Lansing had no standing to file the request for demolition. But that is not an issue before me. Respondent [the Historic District Commission] accepted the city petition and decided in the city’s favor. The issue before me is whether the Petioner can appeal this decision NOT who can file a petition with respondent” (emphasis in original —“not” was underlined). I also want to point out that the “Issues” under consideration were clearly stated by the judge. In this section of the “Conclusions of Law,” “Issue 1” states: “Does petitioner have standing to appeal Respondent’s decision.” This is the entire reason the judge pointed out the “applicant” section of the law that Mr. McGinty quoted above. What the judge REALLY said (not what Mr. McGinty would have you believe) was that only “applicants” can file an appeal, and reviewing the list of those entities that can file an application, under the “Conclusion of Law,” I was “none of the above,” and, therefore, as the judge stated on Page 6: “[Mr. Bellfy] does not have standing to file an appeal from Respondent’s decision since petitioner did not file a permit [an application] as provided in MCL 399.205(1) and is not an applicant as required by MCL 399.205 (2).” There it is —read it for yourself on the Public Response website at the link provided above. After reading this ruling —and I urge you to do so— I suspect that the only person who has “demonstrated a lack of understanding of relatively simple legal principles” is Mr. McGinty. Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:34:33 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46295 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46470 I trust the two rambling, paranoid men more than someone who was actually in the courtroom and has actual experience with the law. Sorry, Phil and Sol. You got lawyerized. In print. Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:33:05 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46470 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46473 Well, Jake, I was actually “in the courtroom” for the Hearing —Mr. McGinty WAS NOT (he sent his assistant, apparently “too busy” to argue the city’s case that he is now misrepresenting). Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:32:21 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/46473