Why did city alter only Earl lemieur's warning letter? ATTENTION ROBERT J. FEULING OWNER OF WEST SIDE LIQUOR

In a letter dated July 8, 2014  from Ben Oleson City Of Little Falls zoning administrator(public information by the way) addressed to Lemieur Earl 2011 Revocable Trust P.O. Box 156 Little Falls, Mn. that reads : "To whom it may concern:  We received a copy sent to you by the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding their requirement that you remove the large sign that is in their right-of way.  Please note that while we do have record of a sign permit from 2009 that covers the ON PREMISE signs on this property, we are not able to approve any off-premise signage(the McDonald's sign).  If you move that sign onto your property, it will require a  The City of Little Falls has recently received an inquiry as to whether certain activities or structures on your property comply with the requirements of the City's ordinances.   The property in question is [street address] Parcel ID [48.XXXX.XXX]   The subject of the inquiry is [description]   It is the responsibility of the City Zoning Administrator to determine whether a violation has occurred or not.   Please contact me toll free at 888-439-9793 or 320-759-1560 to discuss this matter at your earliest convenience.  Thank you.  Sincerely, Ben Oleson, Hometown Planning, City of Little Falls Zoning Administrator"

In Ben Oleson's ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REPORT BOOK dated Wed. Aug. 6, 201414  the following comments are listed about Earl Lemieur's property at 103 Sixth St. S.E.  "MnDot sent owner a letter dated 6/27/14 giving owner until August 30 to REMOVE IT FROM THE ROW. Sent City letter dated 7/8/2014 indicating that a permit would be necessary and that off-premise signs are not allowed.


NO OTHER WARNING LETTER TO DATE HAS EVER BEEN SENT TO ANYONE IN THE LAST 3 YEARS THAT HID THEIR PARCEL ID OR STREET ADDRESS.   Now why do you suppose Earl Lemieur appears to be shielded in a special way.    This matter has been brought to the attention of Gena Rohls, IPAD office Mn. Data Practice Act, and the Attorney General.  I will continue to take these issues as high as need be.  Selective enforcement of any ordinances are just not acceptable in my book.  Selective enforcement is a violation of the law.   And that matters. 

Robert Feuling I am pointing this out specifically to you, because you MAY HAVE BEEN TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN EARL LEMIEUR THAT MIGHT MATTER TO YOU.  It matters to me that I have been treated very differently with sign enforcement issues/warning letters/citations and the like.  This also might matter to the owners of the 2 Holiday Station Stores, whose attorney stated in part of a letter dated Sept. 20, 2012from Gary Gandrud, Gandrud Law, PLLC to the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator City of Little Falls "By way of background, I have served as City Attorney for 23 years (Bloomington, then White Bear and Sunfish Lakes at same time). Your ordinance is the most deliberately broad and incomprehensively general regulation that I have ever encountered.  With regret, I must inform you that this ordinance is an unconstitutional attempt at extending your police power to areas that have no relation to the public health, safety or welfare.  In addition, in certain matters the City of Little Falls is prohibited from regulating
what you define as a sign, by either pre-emption by law or by estoppel and laches.  Rather than challenge the entire ordinance as an unconstitutional exercise of your police power, may I suggest additional amendments that properly recognize legal non-conforming uses, that recognize acceptable "sign packages" or "plans"? 

Wow.....this is a very powerful letter and backs up what my two attorneys have been saying to the court since May 2012.