Minnesota Supreme Court sides with Hu...

Minnesota Supreme Court sides with Hubbard on house

There are 95 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Feb 11, 2010, titled Minnesota Supreme Court sides with Hubbard on house. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Rob Hubbard house: The construction of the 8,000-square-foot Lakeland home prompted Hubbard to sue over the denial of a variance by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Since: Feb 08

Sandstone MN

#21 Feb 11, 2010
River Rat wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong, Small Paul, we own the St. Croix River and the rest of the public lands and waters that you Rethuglicans think is your private domain to be sold to the highest bidder.
The house is not built over the water. It's built on land that is privately owned and pays TAXES. Just because you want a pretty view does not entitle you to limit the use of PRIVATE land.
sad

Prior Lake, MN

#22 Feb 11, 2010
Turk wrote:
<quoted text>
Throw out stale judgemental stereotypes much?
Yours is probably in your mailbox too.:)
The Diary of Al Franken

Saint Paul, MN

#23 Feb 11, 2010
I release two canisters of hair spray in to the atmosphere each day to piss of the Treethugers and the green police.
Carbon Bigfoot

Minneapolis, MN

#24 Feb 11, 2010
River Rat wrote:
You can lay this squarely on the doorstep of those petty little jerks on the Lakeland City Council and the Lakeland mayor's office. That whole burg should be bulldozed and returned to its natural state.
How about if you return to your natural state?
Tall Paul

Saint Paul, MN

#26 Feb 11, 2010
River Rat wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong, Small Paul, we own the St. Croix River and the rest of the public lands and waters that you Rethuglicans think is your private domain to be sold to the highest bidder.
Your right Rat, you are absolutely right. Except for the part where Hubbard owns a lot on top of a bluff. That he bought quite legally and was previousely owned by others before him. Now its his and he can do with as he sees fit and has now been found to be completely legal too.

The Hubbards have done more to restore, save, improve and safegaurd public lands then you and your 10 best freinds will ever accomplish in your lifetimes.
EqualRights

AOL

#27 Feb 11, 2010
An 8,000 square foot house? For 2 people?
AAG

Saint Paul, MN

#28 Feb 11, 2010
Sig Sauer wrote:
<quoted text>
What a petty, jealous, little malcontent. How much do you pay in property tax? And, do you think he is going to dump his sewage into the river? This guy works hard for his money and will provide jobs for architects, engineers, construction workers, etc. But envious people like you with your overused pejorative "mcmansion", snivel like school girls.
Jealous? Not. Just pointing out the fact that this was a procedural error-their is nothing to indicate that the DNR was wrong, but simply late in their decision. And to say that had this been a regular joe in the same circumstance, undoubtedly they would not have had the money to pursue this legally. Hubbard got out of it because he could afford the lawyer to make the technicality case. It appears you're the one with the envy of rich guys as your flagrant portrayal of them displays.
The Observer

Minneapolis, MN

#29 Feb 11, 2010
Okay, let's do the math.... The Hubbards give money to Pawlenty. Pawlenty appointed the judges. The judges side with the Hubbards. What a system!
Buford T Pusser

Philadelphia, PA

#32 Feb 11, 2010
The Minnesota DNR takes some of the dumbest stances on things. Is there an IQ maximum for getting a senior position in the DNR? If they're not blowing money attending needless conventions in sunny locales, they are getting themselves wrapped up in these losing battles. How much did this fiasco cost the taxpayers? The same amount should be removed from the salary pool of the top 20 managers at the DNR and they should all take appropriate pay cuts. I doubt they will ever pull their heads out unless their mistkes cost them something personally.
Opera singers forum

Minneapolis, MN

#33 Feb 11, 2010
ME ME ME ME ME!
Acquisitiveness is killing this country.
REAP

Minneapolis, MN

#34 Feb 11, 2010
River Rat wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong, Small Paul, we own the St. Croix River and the rest of the public lands and waters that you Rethuglicans think is your private domain to be sold to the highest bidder.
not sure how politics got in here, but I for one own nothing (like you rat) that was here before me...typical entitlement..."trust me, I know whats best for you and the land"
felix

Saint Paul, MN

#35 Feb 11, 2010
GOOD !!!!
boycott channel 5

Saint Paul, MN

#36 Feb 11, 2010
he don't care about nature
I'll just stop watch channel 5
impeachobamanow

Erwin, NC

#37 Feb 11, 2010
Hubbard, you worked hard for your money...you are not mooching off taxpayers...you paid your way...glad you beat the DNR and hope you enjoy your new house. And all you cry babies should grow up! If you had the money you would do the same thing!
River Rat

Minneapolis, MN

#38 Feb 11, 2010
The Diary of Al Franken wrote:
I release two canisters of hair spray in to the atmosphere each day to **** of the Treethugers and the green police.
Why doesn't this surprise me?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#39 Feb 11, 2010
boycott channel 5 wrote:
he don't care about nature
I'll just stop watch channel 5
better turn off Dish Network too, then.
What about our view

Saint Paul, MN

#40 Feb 11, 2010
AAG wrote:
<quoted text>
Just pointing out the fact that this was a procedural error-their is nothing to indicate that the DNR was wrong, but simply late in their decision.
The Court ruled that the DNR did not have the authority to deny the variance. Unfortunately, the Court did not even get to the timing issue.
Before this decision the DNR had the authority to deny variances to make sure the application of ordinances was consistent along the entire river. In other words, the DNR had the authority to prevent unjustified exceptions and ensure that the river's character was maintained throughout; not a patchwork of cities and counties applying the standards as their richest citizens dictate.
This ruling is going to turn development along the Lower St. Croix into the wild west. Next time you heading down the Lower St. Croix, you can thank Hubbard and his mercenary attorneys for the string of McMansions which will inevitably develop.
It speaks volumes that someone would rather tear down the entire system just to get a better view of the river. Congratulations to Hubbard. For someone who claims to be a steward of the river, you’ve just ensured its destruction.
Enjoy the view!

Since: Feb 08

Ely, Minnesota

#41 Feb 11, 2010
The Observer wrote:
Okay, let's do the math.... The Hubbards give money to Pawlenty. Pawlenty appointed the judges. The judges side with the Hubbards. What a system!
Ron and his father Stanly, lived right next door to a supreme court judge for almost their entire lives. Mr. Davies down the river in Denmark township had this same type problem, building his new mansion. I know both families. They earned the money..well Ron didn`t, but he has it..the thing is, they are really breaking no laws, and the DNR is crooked in the first place.

Washington County, who had refused for years, permits to those that owned land on the bluffs to build and get septic systems in Denmark Township, themselves re-built a home in it`s St. Croix Bluffs park [near the Davies home] and installed a septic system that they wouldn`t let others build. From blacktop roads to docks and river landings, the county got what they wanted without the slightest complaint.

Now it`s Rons turn. Well I`m not a Hubbard fan in the least. The little boy is a .... But he did do the right thing, and contest the DNR. There was a footprint from the old cabin, and I think it`s just fine. Myself, I think it`s way to noisy on that part of the river, and you can hear traffic on the Hudson bridge big time. To stand around a fire pit [well hubbard will not] in that area is a joke anyway....can`t hardly see the stars for the night lights now....let him have his house in peace already.

Ron....Your still a little sap, and I can still kick your butt. But good for you on this one.

Since: Feb 08

Ely, Minnesota

#42 Feb 11, 2010
impeachobamanow wrote:
Hubbard, you worked hard for your money...you are not mooching off taxpayers...you paid your way...glad you beat the DNR and hope you enjoy your new house. And all you cry babies should grow up! If you had the money you would do the same thing!
No, lets get one part of your comment straight here. Daddy Stan worked his a-s-s off for the money. Ron is the spoiled boy brat of the family....but the empire is now partly his. So be it. We all [yes I was a neighbor] knew he would, and from the time Ron was a kid, he made sure people knew it. A jerk he is, a spoiled kid he still is...but so what? That`s just how it is.

Yep, if I was Ron, I would have done the same. That part you have right
Good for Stanley

Des Moines, IA

#43 Feb 11, 2010
All you liberal whiners, go ahead and piss and moan all you want. Today, Hubbard became a hero because they fired Dribble and Murpy over at 1500. I may actually start listening to the station again!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chelsea Clinton rallies the faithful in Twin Ci... 2 hr DSM Local 20
proposal 2 hr Click this 2
Chipotle Meeting 5 hr DSM Local 5
Obama Policy " Catch and Release " 6 hr USA USA USA USA 11
State Patrol endangers unborn baby. 7 hr DSM Local 8
super bowl thread 8 hr Amerikuh Falling 8
massive brainwashing 8 hr TOASTER 26
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages