Continuing with our five part video series on the Hennepin county judicial races (click here and here for the prior installments), today we bring you Hennepin County prosecutor Jane Ranum, who is one of two candidates running to fill the seat left vacant by the forthcoming retirement of Judge Thomas Wexler. (The other candidate is Hennepin County District Court referee David Piper.) Ranum is a former state senator.
In this clip, Ranum discusses why voters should pick her to fill the open seat.
Click here for the YouTube version of this video.
Showing posts with label hennepin county. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hennepin county. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Hennepin County judicial races: David Piper
Yesterday we brought you video of Judge Philip Bush at last week's Hennepin County Bar Association judicial forum. Today we bring you part two of our five-part video series on the Hennepin County judicial races with David Piper. Piper has been a full-time family court referee in Hennepin County since 2001. He is one of two candidates who survived the primary in the race to fill the seat left open with the forthcoming retirement of Judge Thomas Wexler. Piper's opponent in the race is Hennepin County prosecutor and former state Senator Jane Ranum.
In the clip we present today, Piper discusses his qualifications to make the move from referee to judge.
Click here to see the YouTube vsersion of this video.
In the clip we present today, Piper discusses his qualifications to make the move from referee to judge.
Click here to see the YouTube vsersion of this video.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Slip-Slade-ing away from Hennepin race
As some of you have noticed, immediately after the filling period closed, the field went down from seven to six in the race for the open Hennepin County judicial seat. Why? One of the candidates -- Minneapolis attorney Nick Slade -- withdrew his name. (And, by the way, what a great-sounding name it is -- right out of a dime-store detective novel or 1940s film noir.)
Shortly after his decision to flee the crowded field, I called Slade and left a voicemail message for him seeking his reasons. The call went unreturned, which is why I didn't post anything about it here. But, since some of you appear to still be curious and since an anonymous commenter provided me a link, click here to see what Slade has to say on his campaign website on his decision. The crux of it is that a lot of people are running and, with his legal work, he doesn't feel he can put in the time and effort necessary to prevail.
It's not unusual for at least one candidate to withdraw his or her name immediately after the judicial-election filing period. (In fact, there is a brief withdrawal period after filings close that allows candidates to do exactly this.) This year, it was Slade who pulled out, leaving an even half dozen lawyers to run for the seat of retiring Judge Thomas Wexler. The good news? With six you get eggroll.
Shortly after his decision to flee the crowded field, I called Slade and left a voicemail message for him seeking his reasons. The call went unreturned, which is why I didn't post anything about it here. But, since some of you appear to still be curious and since an anonymous commenter provided me a link, click here to see what Slade has to say on his campaign website on his decision. The crux of it is that a lot of people are running and, with his legal work, he doesn't feel he can put in the time and effort necessary to prevail.
It's not unusual for at least one candidate to withdraw his or her name immediately after the judicial-election filing period. (In fact, there is a brief withdrawal period after filings close that allows candidates to do exactly this.) This year, it was Slade who pulled out, leaving an even half dozen lawyers to run for the seat of retiring Judge Thomas Wexler. The good news? With six you get eggroll.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Two more file for Wexler's seat in Hennepin County
Two more entrants in the race for the seat left vacant by retiring Judge Thomas Wexler. Jane Ranum and Thomas Sheran have thrown their hats in the ring, bringing the total field for that seat so far to four attorneys.
In other election news: a challenge has been filed in the 3rd Judicial District, with Anthony Moosbrugger to square off against Judge Lawrence Agerter.
UPDATE, 7/15/08: Minneapolis defense lawyer Paula Brummel has entered the race, bringing the field up to five.
In other election news: a challenge has been filed in the 3rd Judicial District, with Anthony Moosbrugger to square off against Judge Lawrence Agerter.
UPDATE, 7/15/08: Minneapolis defense lawyer Paula Brummel has entered the race, bringing the field up to five.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Swenson to be elected chief in Hennepin
A much-lauded jurist will be elected today as chief judge of Hennepin County District Court. Judge James Swenson, who has served the last two years as assistant chief, was scheduled to be elected today without opposition. Judge Denise Reilly will succeed him as assistant chief.
Swenson has served on the bench since 1995 and is up for election in the fall. Last year he received the Foundation for Improvement of Justice 2007 Paul H. Chapman Award for his work in Family Court by promoting early resolution of cases involving children and families through strategies such as Early Case Management and Early Neutral Evaluation programs.
He has also received the Minnesota District Judges Association’s Award for Outstanding Service to the Judiciary and the Anne V. Simonett Award as the 4th Judicial District Employee of the Year for his work in developing alternative dispute resolution techniques.
Swenson has served on the bench since 1995 and is up for election in the fall. Last year he received the Foundation for Improvement of Justice 2007 Paul H. Chapman Award for his work in Family Court by promoting early resolution of cases involving children and families through strategies such as Early Case Management and Early Neutral Evaluation programs.
He has also received the Minnesota District Judges Association’s Award for Outstanding Service to the Judiciary and the Anne V. Simonett Award as the 4th Judicial District Employee of the Year for his work in developing alternative dispute resolution techniques.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Happy Judge Allen Oleisky Day!
Beloved is rarely an adjective you see used before a judge's name any more, but if it is appropriate anywhere for a member of the local bench, it is appropriate before the name of retiring Hennepin County District Court Judge Allen Oleisky. Oleisky is the state's longest serving judge, having been appointed a municipal court judge in Hennepin County 36 years ago, when he was just 34. (The municipal court was later merged into the District Court.)
I recall that when the Hennepin County Bar Association used to conduct a plebiscite in which lawyers voted whether or not judges should be retained, Oleisky was a top vote-getter. His name always comes up when lawyers list off judges they respect.
It is unfortunate that the state requires that judges retire on their 7oth birthday. It seems a waste that, through an arbitrary cut-off line, the state deprives its citizens of wise and experienced, albeit somewhat gray, heads. Personally, I would much rather have the 70-year-old Oleisky presiding over my case than the 34-year-old one, but the state seems to have a preference for the latter. I think forced retirement at 70 is an anachronism that itself ought to be retired.
In any event, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has declared today Allen Oleisky Day. It is fitting that the governor has done so. We at the Minnesota Lawyer blog would like to take this opportunity to thank the good judge for his many excellent years of service to the people of this state. We wish him well in his new career as an ADR provider.
Judge Oleisky at his retirement party last week
with Court Administrator Mark Thompson
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Guardian ad Litem Program seeks advocates
We received the following release from the Hennepin County District Court. Sounds like a worthy cause for those who fit the bill. It's tonight, so you'd better hurry if you're interested ...
Guardians ad Litem represent the best interests of some 2,500 abused and neglected children involved in the court system through no fault of their own. Court decisions impacting a child’s future require a spokesperson on behalf of the child, an objective adult to provide independent information about the best interests of the child.
Approximately 250 specially-trained community volunteers serve as Guardians ad Litem. Of those, less than ten percent are Black and Black children represent 37 percent of youth needing advocates. The program seeks culturally competent advocates, especially for children of color.
The Fourth Judicial District Guardian ad Litem Program is hosting a child advocacy networking event to create awareness within the local community about the need for culturally competent child advocates. Attendees will receive information about how to become a volunteer Guardian ad Litem, view presentations and meet current Guardians ad Litem and others involved in the juvenile court process.
WHAT: Guardian ad Litem program child advocacy networking event
WHEN: Wednesday, March 19; 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
WHERE: Babalu Restaurant, 801 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis, MN, 55401
WHO: Concerned citizens who have experience with children (parenting, other personal, volunteer or professional experience assisting youth), common sense and a desire to help children.
Guardians ad Litem represent the best interests of some 2,500 abused and neglected children involved in the court system through no fault of their own. Court decisions impacting a child’s future require a spokesperson on behalf of the child, an objective adult to provide independent information about the best interests of the child.
Approximately 250 specially-trained community volunteers serve as Guardians ad Litem. Of those, less than ten percent are Black and Black children represent 37 percent of youth needing advocates. The program seeks culturally competent advocates, especially for children of color.
The Fourth Judicial District Guardian ad Litem Program is hosting a child advocacy networking event to create awareness within the local community about the need for culturally competent child advocates. Attendees will receive information about how to become a volunteer Guardian ad Litem, view presentations and meet current Guardians ad Litem and others involved in the juvenile court process.
WHAT: Guardian ad Litem program child advocacy networking event
WHEN: Wednesday, March 19; 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
WHERE: Babalu Restaurant, 801 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis, MN, 55401
WHO: Concerned citizens who have experience with children (parenting, other personal, volunteer or professional experience assisting youth), common sense and a desire to help children.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
WSJ Law Blog weighs in on local attorney-discipline case
The Wall Street Journal law blog tackles a topic today that has gotten a lot of play locally -- the attorney-discipline case of Hennepin County prosecutor Gemma Graham. ("Prosecutor Suspended for Spurning CLE Requirements.")
The facts of Graham's case will be familiar to our readers at this point, but the comments the post generates make good reading. For example, there is a lot of negative commentary on the value of mandatory CLEs. Here's one of the more cutting:
Although the comment is a bit harsh, I personally prefer a voluntary CLE system to a mandatory one -- even with the breaks for bagels and chocolate chip cookies.
The posting also contained the revelation that Minnesota is the home state of the principal writer of the WSJ Law blog, Dan Slater. While the Manhattan litigator turned blogger left the Minnie Apple for the Big Apple some time ago, his nod to the Gopher State shows he hasn't forgotten the taste of lutefisk.
The facts of Graham's case will be familiar to our readers at this point, but the comments the post generates make good reading. For example, there is a lot of negative commentary on the value of mandatory CLEs. Here's one of the more cutting:
This is genius, skip CLE for 20 years and get a 900 fine! I’d do that in a
second. CLE is the biggest scam in the world. It provides no value except to the
CLE companies who bilk their customers and line the pockets of the state bars
for mailing lists and stringent requirements.
Although the comment is a bit harsh, I personally prefer a voluntary CLE system to a mandatory one -- even with the breaks for bagels and chocolate chip cookies.
The posting also contained the revelation that Minnesota is the home state of the principal writer of the WSJ Law blog, Dan Slater. While the Manhattan litigator turned blogger left the Minnie Apple for the Big Apple some time ago, his nod to the Gopher State shows he hasn't forgotten the taste of lutefisk.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Prosecutor's CLE troubles have been an education
As the Strib reports today, there has been a lot of talk in the legal community about whether or not Hennepin County prosecutor Gemma Graham got off too lightly for prosecuting cases while her law license was on restricted status. For a period of 20 years -- from 1986 to 2007 -- Graham continued to practice despite being in noncompliance with the state's continuing legal education requirement. (The high court gave her a reprimand and two years of probation.)
On the one hand, there is no necessary correlation between the CLE requirement and whether a lawyer stays current in his or her field. If you are a criminal law practitioner, you could satisfy the CLE requirement by taking courses in family law, real estate law or any other kind of law you want. In fact, you could take no CLEs in any substantive area of practice at all and still satisfy the CLE requirement with professional-development courses. (You must also accrue a limited number of ethics and elimination-of-bias credits each reporting period as well.) In any event, Graham says she attended some CLEs during the period at issue, but didn't properly record them to make sure she was in compliance.
On the other hand, if Minnesota is going to have a CLE requirement, there have to be consequences for not following it that would dissuade those who would play fast and loose with the rules -- and possibly the law. (It is a misdemeanor in Minnesota to practice law without a valid license.) What bothers me most about Graham's case is the length of time involved -- two decades. She would have known during that entire period that she was not meeting the state's license requirement, but chose to ignore it. The fact that she would make that choice time and time again -- despite reporting period after reporting period where she could have followed the rules -- is what I find most disconcerting about the entire episode. I don't blame Hennepin County Public Defender Lenny Castro for being upset about this -- a prosecutor who would make such a questionable series of choices raises some concerns in my mind as well.
On balance, the punishment strikes me as light given the length of time involved. However, the embarrassment Graham now faces with the media coverage of this has added a new element to that original sanction. I suspect any lawyer thinking of practicing without fulfilling his or her CLE requirement would think twice about doing so now.
On the one hand, there is no necessary correlation between the CLE requirement and whether a lawyer stays current in his or her field. If you are a criminal law practitioner, you could satisfy the CLE requirement by taking courses in family law, real estate law or any other kind of law you want. In fact, you could take no CLEs in any substantive area of practice at all and still satisfy the CLE requirement with professional-development courses. (You must also accrue a limited number of ethics and elimination-of-bias credits each reporting period as well.) In any event, Graham says she attended some CLEs during the period at issue, but didn't properly record them to make sure she was in compliance.
On the other hand, if Minnesota is going to have a CLE requirement, there have to be consequences for not following it that would dissuade those who would play fast and loose with the rules -- and possibly the law. (It is a misdemeanor in Minnesota to practice law without a valid license.) What bothers me most about Graham's case is the length of time involved -- two decades. She would have known during that entire period that she was not meeting the state's license requirement, but chose to ignore it. The fact that she would make that choice time and time again -- despite reporting period after reporting period where she could have followed the rules -- is what I find most disconcerting about the entire episode. I don't blame Hennepin County Public Defender Lenny Castro for being upset about this -- a prosecutor who would make such a questionable series of choices raises some concerns in my mind as well.
On balance, the punishment strikes me as light given the length of time involved. However, the embarrassment Graham now faces with the media coverage of this has added a new element to that original sanction. I suspect any lawyer thinking of practicing without fulfilling his or her CLE requirement would think twice about doing so now.
Friday, November 30, 2007
The merry mice of Hennepin County
‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the courthouse, not a creature was stirring, except for a mouse. There may, in fact, be many mice spending the holidays in the Hennepin County Government Center, according to an e-mail recently circulated to employees at the facility.
A pest control company has been called, but won’t start its extermination efforts until January because “there will be way too much food in the building during the holidays for this aggressive plan to be effective,” the e-mail said.
Plus it would, of course, completely wreck the holiday season for the mice involved.
A pest control company has been called, but won’t start its extermination efforts until January because “there will be way too much food in the building during the holidays for this aggressive plan to be effective,” the e-mail said.
Plus it would, of course, completely wreck the holiday season for the mice involved.
In any event, the e-mail goes on to warn employees that “mice may be small, but they can cause large problems.” (Napolean was actually the same way.)
Hopefully this doesn’t sound too cheesy, but best wishes to the furry little friends of the Hennepin County staff as they enjoy this, their final holiday season. I also offer the following piece of advice: Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, well, you know the rest …
Hopefully this doesn’t sound too cheesy, but best wishes to the furry little friends of the Hennepin County staff as they enjoy this, their final holiday season. I also offer the following piece of advice: Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, well, you know the rest …
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Hiring freeze at Fourth Judicial District announced
The Fourth Judicial District, serving Hennepin County, in a press release today announced an immediate hiring freeze along with changes in court hours and operations in response to an anticipated budget shortfall. The court projects a $1.4 million budget deficit for its current fiscal year which ends in June 2008.
The hiring freeze reportedly will result in staff shortages throughout the court, requiring a reduction in services. Some of the changes that will impact the public include:
-- Walk-in counter and telephone services will be curtailed Wednesday afternoons, 1:30-4:30 pm, beginning Jan. 2, 2008. For example, citizens will no longer be able to pay traffic tickets in person, request copies of court files, or receive updates on the status of cases via telephone on Wednesday afternoons at all locations. Court hearings and trials will not be affected and will continue as usual.
-- Conciliation Court calendars will be reduced by one-third, resulting in some delay in scheduling hearings.
-- A program that provides supervised visitation services to noncustodial parents and their children in Family Court will be halted.
-- The court will no longer provide arbitrators for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil Court.
-- The court will no longer conduct criminal record checks for the public; members of the public will be referred to the public access website where this information is available.
Several factors are contributing to the anticipated shortfall, according to the release. The Hennepin County Court received $900,000 less than its budget required to cover salary and fringe benefit increases and funding for positions required by a new information system. Some of the new money that was appropriated to the state’s trial courts for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 biennium was earmarked for special purposes, making it unavailable to cover increases in basic operating costs like employee salaries and insurance.
The District had hoped to rely on vacancy savings to help cover its shortfall. However, year-to-date vacancy rates have been much lower than expected, the release said.
The hiring freeze reportedly will result in staff shortages throughout the court, requiring a reduction in services. Some of the changes that will impact the public include:
-- Walk-in counter and telephone services will be curtailed Wednesday afternoons, 1:30-4:30 pm, beginning Jan. 2, 2008. For example, citizens will no longer be able to pay traffic tickets in person, request copies of court files, or receive updates on the status of cases via telephone on Wednesday afternoons at all locations. Court hearings and trials will not be affected and will continue as usual.
-- Conciliation Court calendars will be reduced by one-third, resulting in some delay in scheduling hearings.
-- A program that provides supervised visitation services to noncustodial parents and their children in Family Court will be halted.
-- The court will no longer provide arbitrators for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil Court.
-- The court will no longer conduct criminal record checks for the public; members of the public will be referred to the public access website where this information is available.
Several factors are contributing to the anticipated shortfall, according to the release. The Hennepin County Court received $900,000 less than its budget required to cover salary and fringe benefit increases and funding for positions required by a new information system. Some of the new money that was appropriated to the state’s trial courts for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 biennium was earmarked for special purposes, making it unavailable to cover increases in basic operating costs like employee salaries and insurance.
The District had hoped to rely on vacancy savings to help cover its shortfall. However, year-to-date vacancy rates have been much lower than expected, the release said.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Freeman speaks out on recent high court decision
Speaking of interesting quotes (see post below), Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman (on right) had one in a story Minnesota Lawyer published today ("Clergy criminal assault law survives challenge").
Freeman was, of course, pleased that Minnesota Supreme Court did not strike down the law that makes it a crime for clergy members to have sex with a person who is seeking or receiving “religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private.” However, the court went on to give the defendant in that case -- a priest convicted of having sex with two woman parishioners -- a new trial. The high court found that the admission of certain evidence of religious practice and customs during the trial violated the Establishment Clause.
After consulting his trial team, Freeman felt that the defense had not made sufficient objection to the admission of the offending evidence at trial to preserve the issue for appeal.
“This Supreme Court has too often reversed cases for conduct not objected to below. We don’t think that is a good practice," said Freeman, who may file for a rehearing. (The defense attorney maintains that sufficient objection was made at trial in this case.)
In any event, it is highly unusual for a county attorney to make such a strong public statement taking the high court to task.
By the way, the case is State v. Bussmann.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
SS# settlement hasn't completely sunk in at Hennepin
As we have blogged about here before, on July 2 Hennepin County did away with a controversial requirement that applicants for marriage licenses provide a Social Security number. The policy caused problems for immigrants who wanted to marry, and resulted in the lawsuit that served as the impetus for the policy change.
We were notified by an astute reader the other day that an immigration lawyer’s clients had been turned away in Hennepin County because they couldn't provide a Social Security number on their marriage license application. The couple had been unsuccessful in procuring the license at both the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis and the county's Brooklyn Center site.
We were naturally surprised to hear this, given that the county was not supposed to be requiring Social Security numbers any more. So we placed a call to county auditor Jill Alverson to ask her what gives. She promptly returned our call, leaving us the following voicemail:
“We were aware of the one incident at the Government Center. When we became aware of that, we did contact the staff and correct that. The people did come back, and we were able to process their marriage license application. We were not aware of the incident at the Brooklyn Center site. So we will be following up on that. The policy and procedures were changed effective July 2. We have over 180 staff working at our service centers across the county, so I think it's just a matter of time. … We are getting the word out.”
Thanks to Ms. Alverson for getting right on top of this important issue. If anyone else’s client experiences any similar problems with getting a marriage license, you can contact her at the Taxpayer Services Department at (612) 348-3011.
We were notified by an astute reader the other day that an immigration lawyer’s clients had been turned away in Hennepin County because they couldn't provide a Social Security number on their marriage license application. The couple had been unsuccessful in procuring the license at both the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis and the county's Brooklyn Center site.
We were naturally surprised to hear this, given that the county was not supposed to be requiring Social Security numbers any more. So we placed a call to county auditor Jill Alverson to ask her what gives. She promptly returned our call, leaving us the following voicemail:
“We were aware of the one incident at the Government Center. When we became aware of that, we did contact the staff and correct that. The people did come back, and we were able to process their marriage license application. We were not aware of the incident at the Brooklyn Center site. So we will be following up on that. The policy and procedures were changed effective July 2. We have over 180 staff working at our service centers across the county, so I think it's just a matter of time. … We are getting the word out.”
Thanks to Ms. Alverson for getting right on top of this important issue. If anyone else’s client experiences any similar problems with getting a marriage license, you can contact her at the Taxpayer Services Department at (612) 348-3011.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Hennepin nixes Social Security # requirement for marriages
As was first reported in Minnesota Lawyer on June 4, immigration lawyers and their clients have been miffed at Hennepin County for demanding that applicants for a marriage license furnish a Social Security number on their application. (Click here for article from the June 4 edition of Minnesota Lawyer, password required.) Minneapolis attorney David Wilson of the Wilson Law Group represented a woman who wound up leaving the state to get married after she and her intended groom -- a man from Peru who was in the country legally on a K1 visa -- ran into the marriage roadblock locally. (Her fiancé had been unable to produce a Social Security number, so Hennepin County denied the application.) Reporting that his client was "madder than a wet hen" at what had happened, Wilson announced that she was filing suit to end the Hennepin County practice.
Just about a month later, we can report that Wilson, his client and the county have apparently reached consensus, with Hennepin County agreeing to end its offending policy of requiring Social Security numbers.
In an e-mail sent to members of the Minnesota immigration bar late this afternoon, Wilson said: "Hennepin County Hennepin C ounty
Just about a month later, we can report that Wilson, his client and the county have apparently reached consensus, with Hennepin County agreeing to end its offending policy of requiring Social Security numbers.
In an e-mail sent to members of the Minnesota immigration bar late this afternoon, Wilson said: "
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Ballpark land debate doesn't flatter either side
The ongoing hearing before a three-judge panel in Minneapolis over the disputed value of the proposed Twins stadium site is making the parties involved look either less than forthright in their dealings or less than well-prepared for the transaction.
On one side are Land Partners II, the partnership that until recently owned the property and still retains joint development rights and the the current owner, Texas developer Hines Interests. They look like they have been trying to milk Hennepin County by claiming the land -- appraised by attorneys for the county as having a tax value of less than $9 million -- is now worth more than $65 million.
Meanwhile, Hennepin County has already been made to seem like it's low-balling the landowners by trying to take the eight-acre parcel by eminent domain.
The county seems to have badly underestimated how difficult and expensive it would be to acquire the land. County attorney Mike Freeman has admitted as much previously, saying, "There's some things that could have been done differently -- options picked up, discussions occurred earlier." At the same time, Freeman has complained that the owners have steadily jacked up its asking price as negotations have worn on.
Hines last year agreed to pay Land Partners II $25 million for the land. As part of the deal, Hines also agreed to pay Land Partners II 22.5 percent of anything the county pays for the land above $25 million. Depending on how much the land ultimately fetches and the success of subsequent development efforts, Hines could collect millions as a reward for its foresight.
But as this game winds on into extra innings, the winners might be Land Partners II. They've got a significant amount of cash in hand no matter what the judges decide.
On one side are Land Partners II, the partnership that until recently owned the property and still retains joint development rights and the the current owner, Texas developer Hines Interests. They look like they have been trying to milk Hennepin County by claiming the land -- appraised by attorneys for the county as having a tax value of less than $9 million -- is now worth more than $65 million.
Meanwhile, Hennepin County has already been made to seem like it's low-balling the landowners by trying to take the eight-acre parcel by eminent domain.
The county seems to have badly underestimated how difficult and expensive it would be to acquire the land. County attorney Mike Freeman has admitted as much previously, saying, "There's some things that could have been done differently -- options picked up, discussions occurred earlier." At the same time, Freeman has complained that the owners have steadily jacked up its asking price as negotations have worn on.
Hines last year agreed to pay Land Partners II $25 million for the land. As part of the deal, Hines also agreed to pay Land Partners II 22.5 percent of anything the county pays for the land above $25 million. Depending on how much the land ultimately fetches and the success of subsequent development efforts, Hines could collect millions as a reward for its foresight.
But as this game winds on into extra innings, the winners might be Land Partners II. They've got a significant amount of cash in hand no matter what the judges decide.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Hennepin defenders dealing with facility woes
Up to 200 Hennepin County public defenders and staff will have to be temporarily relocated as county officials deal with a lead paint situation at the William McGee Building in Minneapolis. The Public Defenders' Office is located on floors two through eight of the 100-year-old building. Minnesota Lawyer will have a full story on the situation in Monday's edition.
Happy Memorial Day Weekend!
Happy Memorial Day Weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
