Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

City files suit against Danielson, NURD over sign

August 24, 2013

NEW ULM — The City of New Ulm has filed a lawsuit against the two owning entities of the Marktplatz Mall and the dozen potential interests related to the property, over ownership of the electronic......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(18)

OldJournalCarrier

Aug-24-13 9:09 AM

OMG!!! This is completely beyond stupid. How the residents of New Ulm put up this is beyond me. I guess they must like seeing their taxes wasted on legal fees for this stuff.

Let me get this straight -- the city is arguing that if the mall is sold, the sign doesn't go with it!??! What kind of an idiotic argument is that??? What good is the sign without the mall? How can the city even argue this with a straight face?

Maybe it's time the residents of New Ulm vote everyone out and get some people in office who know what they're doing and are mindful that taxpayer money isn't their money.

Hey city of New Ulm. I've got an idea. How about you "split" the sign in three -- then you and the two mall owners each "own" a third of it. If you can split a mall, I'm sure you can split a sign....

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldJournalCarrier

Aug-24-13 9:39 AM

And one more thing. When the sign is split in three, each gets to use and maintain every third light. If everyone's going to act like children, it's time they are treated like children....

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldJournalCarrier

Aug-24-13 10:05 AM

Okay, I know I said my previous comment was my last, but this time I mean it.

The city plans on wasting (oops, I mean spending) $5000 in taxpayer money on this lawsuit. Now this sign occupies what -- a few square feet of property at the most? Would it not be cheap for the taxpayers of New Ulm for the city to just GIVE the land it sits on to the Mall owners?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Aug-24-13 11:53 AM

The sign doesn't work. It hasn't worked in years. The mall isn't going to fix it. If it isn't working and isn't going to be fixed and has no historic value nor aesthetic charm, it should be removed. This is what it takes to get the ball rolling to remove it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Aug-24-13 11:54 AM

Besides, it will give Randy Danielson an opportunity to visit the judge again. It has been a while, like a few months.

Maybe they should use that $5,000 to put a revolving door in the court house instead.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldJournalCarrier

Aug-24-13 1:07 PM

What does the fact that the sign does or doesn't work have to do with it? I'm sure it's not the only sign that doesn't work in the town. Should the city file lawsuits for any non-working sign? How about signs with a bulb or two burned out -- lawsuits for those too?

Ultimately, I don't live in New Ulm, so it's not my tax money being wasted. If the taxpayers of New Ulm don't mind spending then money, then the more lawsuits the better I guess!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldJournalCarrier

Aug-24-13 1:30 PM

And middleclassworker, I hold no love for Randy Danielson. However, it seems the city is being equally slimy by trying to say that if the mall is sold the sign rights don't transfer with it. When you know darn well that when the city agreed to the contract that was never the intent. Like I say, everyone's acting like children, including the city....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

vandjack

Aug-24-13 1:35 PM

Doesn't the story say the City is trying to rent the sign or something, not just take it?

Also, I think the no transfer thing is from the original contract.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marktplatz

Aug-24-13 1:58 PM

This entire dispute over the mall would be over if the City Attorney would do their job and follow the law. They are so conflicted in this mess and only put up road blocks. Citizens do need to speak up.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Aug-24-13 5:00 PM

OJC, I think I understand your confusion. The difference with this sign is that it is on city property, as opposed to any of the number of non-working signs around the city that are on private property. I would imagine that there was some sort of lease agreement that wasn't being honored and now the city wants their land back if the mall owners no longer wish to honor their end of the deal, including paying utility bills on the sign electricity.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldJournalCarrier

Aug-24-13 5:04 PM

I understand that the sign is on city property. However, is that piece of property worth $5000 of the city's (read: taxpayers) money? I bet it's not. Would be cheaper for the city to just admit it bungled up the whole thing, and just give the land (all 6 sq. feet of it, at best) to the mall....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldJournalCarrier

Aug-24-13 5:16 PM

I'm with you Marktplatz. It seems to me that most (95%) of the blame for this whole mess lies with the city. They should NEVER have let the mall be split in two. They should NEVER have let the sign be put on city property -- unless it was a 99 year lease for $1.

How is New Ulm ever going to attract businesses to the downtown with the whole thing in limbo. Give the land the sign sits on to the mall, and spend the $5000 in attacting NEW businesses to New Ulm. But that will never happen. The city is so wrapped up on this whole thing. I bet many of us will be dead and gone and the city will still fighting over things....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

crusher

Aug-24-13 10:56 PM

best thing you could do down there is set off a small nuke and start over

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Aug-24-13 11:27 PM

Just wait until Herbergers gets fed up and leaves downtown. They don't own their buildings, there isn't much holding them in that location. I heard that they were looking at the Kmart building. I also heard that Gander Mountain was dabbling with the Kmart building, possibly moving their store from Mankato to New Ulm, less competition with Scheel's and Cabella's. That is a big building at 80,000 square feet, probably a little big for Herberger's by themselves.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marktplatz

Aug-25-13 1:13 AM

Don't think Herbergers is going anywhere. They are extremely happy that a receiver was finally put in place to receive rents and now that they do not have to deal with Danielson. We have many buisnesses that are wanting to come into the mall, but only after the litigation is resolved. End of the year will get interesting. Not only NURD vs SEK/Randy but Randy is also being sued for a slip and fall on lot 1 and he is now going thru a court separation with his wife. His game is coming to an end.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Aug-25-13 1:35 AM

I'm not sure it is appropriate to be dragging issues relating to Mr. Danielson's marriage into this discussion. That really isn't our business.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yunosmart

Aug-25-13 2:10 AM

Wow, all this controversy over a ******* sign. Sure is exciting to live in NU.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

getthefactsjack

Aug-30-13 1:38 AM

Usually when a property is sold it is sold with the intent that all things attached to that land go with it, I believe no specifics need to be made but then the past bills will also follow it. That means the sign is the malls....fact.....on the cities property. Now they don't want it but the bill doesn't go away. If anyone has been in the town a few decades they could have seen it was a valuable asset to the mall and any downtown businesses that could purchase time on the sign to advertise. Why tear it down, for another parking stall. That's pretty dum when we can't even get businesses to come to New Ulm let alone customers or lease a spot for the working people. Put logic and thought into making the city a better place rather than causing conflict with the mall or anything for that matter. As far as Danielson goes I haven't seen the city or judicial system dick the dog more than with Danielson. When that stops and control begins is when the deterioration and demise will also stop.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 18 of 18 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web