King of County Board a Land Baron, Too
It would appear that Lee Holloway's troubles extend beyond his role as a public servant.
Seven weeks after a Jan. 2 fire battered a six-unit Holloway-owned building on the north side, basic repairs remain undone despite a city building code deadline last week. Tenants in the only two still-inhabited apartments at 2026 W. Atkinson Ave. resorted to heating their apartments with electric stoves to compensate for a cold draft from a large, uncovered broken window in the building's central corridor. Firefighters had to knock it out to fight the fire.
On Tuesday, a day after a reporter and photographer visited, workers boarded over the window, and the property manager said the broken front door was being replaced. In a lower level apartment where water seeped into a light fixture, the tenant is concerned the situation poses a fire hazard.
Tenants also said they spent three days without heat over the weekend - the coldest so far this winter. They said they were forced to wear winter coats around the house to stay warm, even when the furnace is functional, because of the draft from the broken window.
These tenants didn't need assistance from the state to pay their bills, they merely needed their landlord to fix the furnace and replace broken windows. Shameful.
The story continues:
At a different Holloway-owned property, court records show, a dispute with city building inspectors over the condition of a single-unit rental on N. 7th St. escalated in December to the point where a Municipal Court judge issued an arrest warrant for Holloway.
The warrant came after Holloway failed to appear in court on a building-code prosecution that started last September - and two months after a building inspection worker says she was angrily turned away by Holloway when attempting to serve him with a complaint and court summons in the case.
Holloway paid a $220 fine last month in the case, in which the city attorney's office alleged that he waited six months to fix safety, heating and plumbing problems at a 125-year-old cottage in the rear of the property at 3422 N. 7th St.
The fine was set at the minimum allowed by law because the repairs were deemed completed by the time the court case was disposed of in January.
And in an unbeleivable case of irony...(emphasis mine)
The N. 7th St. property is one of several that Holloway failed to disclose on annual economic-interest statements required by the county Ethics Board, according to a pending civil complaint filed by the board. Property records show the parcel, upon which two residences were built, was deeded to Holloway in 1987.And if that wasn't enough, the story gets even more interesting. The article also details how Holloway reacted to the whole matter:
The department attempted to serve Holloway at his home in the Sherman Park neighborhood on two separate days in October, city records show.A word of warning to Holloway's tennants. These tenants should not complain about Holloway's actions (or lack thereof). They may be accused of trying to lynch their landlord.
No one answered the door the first time. On the second try, Holloway was home but refused to accept the summons, closing the door after expressing his displeasure, said Susan Sloniker, the special compliance inspector for the city who tried to serve the papers.
"He was verbally very loud and very unhappy with the situation," Sloniker recalled.
She said Holloway asserted that all repairs had been made at that time. But that was not the case, based on an early November visit to the property, Sloniker said.
Karen Jacobs, assistant supervisor of the Department of Neighborhood Services' enforcement division, said that fewer than 5% of defendants in building-code cases personally refuse to accept court summonses.
Because Holloway did not accept the documents in October, Milwaukee police as a matter of routine were asked to mail him the complaint, which they did in November, Jacobs said.
By the time of the arraignment date in Municipal Court on Dec. 15, all the cited violations had been taken care of through repairs, city inspectors say. But because Holloway had rejected the summons and did not appear in court or send anyone to plead his case, Municipal Court Judge James Gramling Jr. issued the arrest warrant*** Dec. 15 to compel Holloway to enter a plea.
I should also note that one of the reporters on this story is Dave Umhoefer. Yesterday, Holloway accused Umhoefer of incorrect and inaccurate reporting regarding the funding of the ethics case he faces.
Whom do you believe?
Oh, and by the way, yes, Holloway is still the chairman of the Milwaukee County Board.
Still.
Really.




9 Comments:
Is a "land barron" anything like a "land baron"? Or is a "land barron" someone who owns property in Barron County?
CRG's got the right idea, only let white supervisors vote about Holloway. FInally, we'll get something done.
If Uebelacker can't be on the ethics board because of a small $25.00 contribution to the King's opponent, Supervisors that have conributed more than $100.00 to the King sure as hell shouldn't be in a position to vote on/for him.
You can't have it both ways, as much as you'd like to.
Sorry...that should say supervisors that RECEIVED more than $100.00 from the King. :)
That's not why uebelacker didn't get the votes. In fact, the lawyer for the county said there was no conflict.
Just because the lawyer said there was no conflict didn't stop the Holloway supporters from voting against him because of his support for the King's opponent.
You can try and spin that all you want...that was why he did not get the votes he needed.
There's a difference between being a CRG founder/working on a recall and garden variety contributions. Scream all you want but get the facts.
I have the facts, Mr. or Ms. County Board worker. I don't see the difference that you do.
And make up your mind, did he or didn't he lose the vote due to the contribution. You like to try and have it both ways.
But I do understand...it must be hard to continuously defend a Thug such as Holloway.
(...waiting to be called a racist and to see you point your fingers at someone else.)
I am not defending Holloway; I am defending the idea of integrity in debate. To declare that Uebelacker got shot down because of a cmpaign contribution is simply a lie. Integrtity means, in part, not simply making up a bunchy of stuff to support an argument.
As an aside, while I think your suggestions that I work at the county board, is cute its also plenty silly. I work in the private sector but the real fact is that the quality of my observations shouldn't depend on where I work, at least for people interested in honest debate.
Post a Comment
<< Home