Laserfiche WebLink
David T. GardcUa <br />1230 Orono Oaks Drive <br />Long Lake. MN S53S6 <br />June 1, 2003 <br />City of Orono <br />2750 Kelley Parkway <br />Orono, Mn. 55356 <br />Attention: Nr. Ron Moorse <br />Dear Mr. Moorse, <br />I respectfully request assistance from the City of Orono relevant <br />to the matter specific to Mn/Dot and properties that I formerly <br />owned at 1230 and 1260 Orono Oaks Drive. <br />As you are undoubtedly aware, as part of the ongoing Highway 12 <br />project, the State has purchased both of the aforestated pr>perties. <br />The 1230 property a residence, has been on a leaseback arrangement <br />since January 1, 2003. The initial term was 90 days, subsequently <br />we have been on a month-to-month basis. On Nay 29th, we received a <br />registered letter from Nn/Dot indicating that we are to vacate the <br />property no later than June 30, 2003. They did so under a 30 day <br />notice provision as outlined in our initial lease document. <br />In spite of our best efforts, which commenced in August of 2002, as <br />of now we have been unable to locate/purchase what would constitute <br />by our measurements, acceptable replacement housing. Our efforts <br />since November 2002 have been concentrated out of state. Yet this <br />month we will be making what will be our sixth trip to search for <br />another home. We have now expended a great deal of time and money <br />on this important pursuit. Through the process we have continued to <br />moderate our expectations relevant to cost, location, size etc.. <br />We are now confident that we can make a reasonable decision and move <br />during the course of this Summer. <br />Nr. Moorse, if at all possible we would like to remain in our former <br />residence for at least the ensuing 90 day period. And at this <br />Juncture the State has yet to provide us with either a compelling <br />or a consistait reason as to why that is not possible. Their contention <br />is principally predicated on the fact that they have the legal right <br />to demand vacation. From my perspective, this currently is less about <br />right, and more about reason. How reasonable is it for the State to <br />demand that a party who is paying substantive rent, keeping their <br />property insured, paying for all utilities and upkeep and in all <br />respects protecting the assets of the taxpayers, be evicted Just be­ <br />cause they have the right to do so. 1 would lodge that it is