Laserfiche WebLink
Excerpt of Email from Eric Zaetsch <br />Jo, the 410.09 is no suggestion. It is binding existing statutory law. <br />This online link, and it has plebiscite language we MUST discuss because it might not have been <br />followed, and needs to be in the future. This online State official link <br />https: / /www.revisor.mn.gov /statutes / ?id= 410.09 <br />It states, as part of MINNESOTA CHARTER LAW, that chapter, but the language of limitation <br />is not specific to charters, and charter wording. What the legislature intended can be debated, but <br />the language seems clear and direct. <br />410.09 REGULATION OF FRANCHISES. <br />Such proposed charter may provide for regulating and controlling the exercise of privileges and <br />franchises in or upon the streets and other public places of the city, whether granted by the city, <br />by the legislature, or by any other authority; but no perpetual franchise or privilege shall ever be <br />created, nor shall any exclusive franchise or privilege be granted, unless the proposed grant be <br />first submitted to the voters of the city, and be approved by a majority of those voting thereon, <br />nor in such case for a period of more than 25 years. <br />History: <br />(1283) RL s 753; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 <br />Connexus has an exclusive electricity franchise on my street, I cannot buy power from another <br />supplier, and ditto for Center Point on gas; and was either ever voted on and "approved by a <br />majority of those voting " ? ?? <br />It needs consideration per rule of law. What is history? What next? <br />