« A MESSAGE FROM MDE | Home | DEMOCRAT ABOUT ELLISON: “WE NEED DEMOCRATS WHO ARE TOTALLY ETHICAL, WHOSE RECORD CAN STAND UP TO PUBLIC VIEW” »
REPUBLICAN LEADERS TO FILE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT AGAINST REPRESENTATIVE DENISE DITTRICH
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 31, 2006
St. Paul- State Representatives Kurt Zellers and Tom Emmer today [yesterday] announced that they will file a complaint with the state of Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board against Representative Denise Dittrich.
"I believe in integrity in government. Denise Dittrich needs to tell Minnesotans what the full story is here and let the chips fall where they may,” State Representative Tom Emmer said regarding media reports detailing a potential conflict of interest involving Denise Dittrich and the Northstar Commuter Rail.
"We want to give Denise every opportunity to explain this situation. Our action today seeks answers to these questions that have been raised in press accounts," Representative Kurt Zellers said.
"Denise Dittrich’s conduct raises deeply troubling questions which need to be examined. The Party of Entenza, Hatch, and Ellison again finds itself embroiled in an ethical controversy," Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey.
##
Click here to read the complaint and here to read the supporting documentation.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »
13 Responses to “REPUBLICAN LEADERS TO FILE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT AGAINST REPRESENTATIVE DENISE DITTRICH”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:34 AM
This comment was sent to me.
##
First, by way of introduction, I am a General Partner (and have been for approximately 20 years) in the Partnership that owns the land that your video claims is owned by Denise Dittrich. She does not own the property; a limited partnership owns the property. A simple check of Hennepin County property tax records would show that. The land is owned by a partnership (Duddy, LLLP) and has been continuously for 20 years. During this time period, Denise Dittrich is not, and has never been a partner, of any kind, in the Partnership.
As the person most knowledgeable about who owns what in the area in and around the proposed North Star station and ballpark site, as shown on your web page, I felt I had to respond to the gross distortions in the video posted on your site. Your video implies that Representative Denise Dittrich owns $6,000,000 in land and that the land value went up 34% because of her vote for the North Star rail line. (I will ignore the fact that your tax value numbers for the Partnership are incorrect, as well as your percentage increases, as these issues are somewhat irrelevant to my point).
Her husband has been an owner of approximately 1/3 of 1% of the Partnership. Maybe, by way of law, she owns a portion of her husband’s interest. I can’t speak to this issue. The video implies that Representative Denise Dittrich owns $6,000,000 of land. Clearly this is a gross distortion of the facts. The listing of tax value in the video also implies that this is the equity value to the owner which in and of itself is inaccurate.
Regarding the change in tax value, what your video would like the viewer to conclude is that the change in value from January 2005 to January 2006 was affected by Denise’s vote in May of 2006. Whoever came up with this logic must be a big fan of the SciFi TV channel.
A simple review of the history of tax values would have noted that the value of the property had declined in 2002 and 2003 (reflecting a loss in value from construction interference) and that the increase to the 2006 value from 2001 (about 5% per year) was consistent with the overall increase in property tax values of Hennepin County (as shown in http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/property/other supporting content/assessment_report_2006.pdf). (See pages 11 and 89 for a summary).
In looking at what you have done, I was reminded of what Ronald Reagan once said “Destroy someone’s reputation and you don’t have to talk about what he stands for.â€
I apologize for not responding earlier.
Richard K. Pogin
General Partner of Duddy, LLLP
August 31st, 2006 at 10:28 AM
..and to think. Many of us did not even know the nuts and bolts of this, and we suggested correctly that this was probably the case.
Nice work.
I am sure that Steve Sviggum, being the man of integrity that he is, will step in and suggest that this is akin to Jim Aebler’s earlier conflict and call on this complaint to be dropped.
Or, will this just be yet another sign of hypocracy from the right?
August 31st, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Roving, you saw her talking about this issue on video. Tell us how she can claim that it would have been unethical for her to vote on the Twins Stadium, and then lead the way for Northstar which affects the exact same property.
One of two things happened here.
Either she crossed ethical lines with her fight for Northstar or she was too big a coward to take the controversial Twins stadium vote.
She needs to come clean.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:59 AM
Dumbing – oh, like that’ll happen. She’ll have the kids helping her out try to explain all this away, instead of stepping up and doing so herself.
As for Pogin’s Reagan quote, the irony of how the left has appropriated that exact act to anyone on the right probably escapes him.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Fact: Dittrich conveniently avoided voting on the Twins stadium, claiming a conflict of interest. That’s a FACT. And her reasoning for avoiding the vote? She had a financial interest in a property around the proposed stadium.
Now…Dittrich is a chief sponsor of ANOTHER public project in the SAME area: NorthStar Boondoggle. And RovingIdiot, some General Partner named Pogin, and every liberal defender jumps up to claim you can invoke a conflict in one but not the other.
Sorry. This one doesn’t pass the laugh test. And the biggest laugh will be when Dittrich is removed from office in November.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Let’s say, for one moment, that her husband’s ownership of 1/3 of 1% does not constitute a conflict of interest. Of course, any divorse attorney will tell you that a husband’s wealth/property is also the wife’s.
You can NOT parse out a conflict of interest in ONE public project and not ANOTHER. If there was no conflict of interest with NorthStar…then there wasn’t one with the Twins stadium. But WHY would Dittrich not want to vote on the Twins stadium issue? You mean…other than the 70% of Hennepin county voters that are opposed TO THIS DAY about this? Or is it the fact that she won her seat by a couple hundred votes in 2004, after purchasing it with almost $100,000 of her hubby’s money.
For RovingIdiot and the rest of the liberal clowns…this has less to do with the conflict of interest and more to do with the DFL’s favorite pasttime: Double-speak and lies.
August 31st, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Dave said “Of course, any divorse [sic] attorney will tell you that a husband’s wealth/property is also the wife’s.”
Sorry Dave – I don’t know of ANY attorney, divorce or otherwise, that would make such a statement. It depends on when and how the property was acquired, what assets were used to acquire them and where those assets came from and whether there is a pre-nup in place and what it says.
I’m guessing you don’t know the answers to any of these questions – so why don’t you wait and see how this turns out. An attack press release by the GOP doesn’t mean a thing.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:11 PM
Mitch-
Your are a divorce lawyers wet dream.
In Minnesota, even property and assets acquired before a marriage are elligible for dispersement if they marriage was effected by those assets. (i.e. the husband owned the house before the marriage, but, they both lived their)
There is no “sacred cow” when it comes to a divorce attourneys in MN.
Regardless, those assets owned by the husband were acquired AFTER the marriage, from what we are now learning.
Its fine to twist the truth when nobody has facts. The facts are coming out that THEY had a mutual interest in the property, and that the $6M, even if as this guy claimes is only 1/3 of 1%, is still $20K dollars.
Many DFL candidates in this state have gone to jail for much less.
August 31st, 2006 at 5:23 PM
First the guy says she doesn’t own any part of the property. Then he says:
“Her husband has been an owner of approximately 1/3 of 1% of the Partnership. Maybe, by way of law, she owns a portion of her husband’s interest. I can’t speak to this issue. ”
Seems to me he’s really not sure of what he’s talking about.
If her husband owns ANY part of it, she’s got a stake in the outcome.
And, by the way, I never once thought MDE presented it like she owned $6,000,000 in the property. I thought it was pretty clear that the percentage was low.
Sounds like he protests too much.
August 31st, 2006 at 5:29 PM
Reps.EMMER and ZELLERS and DAVE are RIGHT about this ! PLEASE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY REP.DITTRICH
TO COME FORWARD AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH NORTHSTAR, WHEN YOU BY
YOUR OWN ADMISSION, HAD ONE ON THE TWINS BALLPARK!
August 31st, 2006 at 6:26 PM
Under MN case law, any income earned during the marriage is marital income. Further, any property acquired during the marriage, regardless of whether it is purchased individually or jointly, is marital property. So, in order to not have a conflict of interest, Dittrich must demonstrate that her husband acquired his interest in the partnership prior to their marriage and that they have not received any income from said partnership during their marriage. Otherwise, she has a conflict of interst because she is a co-owner in the partnership and/or has received income from the partnership during the marriage.
September 1st, 2006 at 12:31 PM
I couldnt agree more, I think we need some answers here and I believe that Denise has some explaining to do. I hope the voters in SD47A will remember this when they go cast their ballots in November. They also need to remember that she was a part of the government shutdown as well along with a whole host of others.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:02 AM
[...] This little gem was casually posted to the comment line at MDE. This letter (full text below the fold) is written by a General Partner in the partnership that owns the land that MDE claims Denise Dittrich owns. Some of the highlights from the letter: She does not own the property; a limited partnership owns the property. A simple check of Hennepin County property tax records would show that. The land is owned by a partnership (Duddy, LLLP) and has been continuously for 20 years. During this time period, Denise Dittrich is not, and has never been a partner, of any kind, in the Partnership. [...]