Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (37) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +22 Vote up Vote down anonymous · 296 weeks ago It was only a matter of time. City gov has been out of control. Bank should have been notified and other safeguards. Hard working people ought not be treated this way. Just because something may be “lawful” doesn’t make it right. This isn’t Malibu Heights or Boca Raton, it’s Wellington breadbasket Kansas and we don’t do people that way. People need to resign over this. Not cool at all. Report Reply 0 replies · active 296 weeks ago +8 Vote up Vote down crusader pride · 296 weeks ago I would say before we go throwing the City under the bus we wait and see how this plays out. Why was the taxes not paid…did the county have the correct owner listed?Was the address current? Is there not two sides to every story? If the appraised value is less than 5,000 I am thinking that these folks do not have 75,000 in the property…how much did they pay and when? If I remember right the city has bent over backwards to give people time to clean up property to avoid demolition… Report Reply 2 replies · active 295 weeks ago +7 Vote up Vote down mom2mykids · 295 weeks ago Not to be rude but it looked like a complete dump, eye sore, etc… BUT City should have notified the bank, if there is a loan on the home it would of been listed on the deed and they could have easily notified the bank and found the owners. My question is, if you are remodeling something like that, wouldn’t you pay the taxes and keep them current, why would you let the taxes go for a year? Sounds fishy to me…. Report Reply 1 reply · active 25 weeks ago +13 Vote up Vote down mom2mykids · 295 weeks ago Also…what about all the other dumps sitting around in Wellington, why are they not being demolished? Report Reply 0 replies · active 295 weeks ago +11 Vote up Vote down Clumsy · 295 weeks ago lets blame the big bad city even though it took the owners 3 months to discover the house was torn down and they are suing for over 75,000 dollars when the dump is appraised at $4750. people should think this out. Report Reply 0 replies · active 295 weeks ago +8 Vote up Vote down anonymous · 295 weeks ago People don’t seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character. – Ralph Waldo Emerson Report Reply 0 replies · active 295 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down Thirsty · 295 weeks ago The structure was appraised at the $4750 value. That does not include the value of the “land.” I am sure the land is worth a little more as it is more than likely around 2700 an acre. Not saying this place is worth a whole lot but with 10-20K in renovations they anticipated on putting into it would value it roughly at the 75k range. I see their side and I see Wellington’s side. They should have contacted the bank like everybody else says but what they did was lawful. Putting a notice in a public published reading is considered a reasonable attempt by law. These people will probably be shafted and the city will probably squeak by with this one. They should change their policy after this one though! They don’t need to be getting sued on the taxpayers dime. Report Reply 4 replies · active 25 weeks ago +10 Vote up Vote down Guest · 295 weeks ago Hold on, can we all recall several buildings downtown that needed demolished, the worst being 201 N Washington which transformed into a swan. I don’t know these people, but they don’t live here and 3 months is nothing, if they were remodeling they were doing it on their time frame, not yours. The lawsuit I am guessing is representative of what the home would have been valued at completed (I am not an appraiser so just guessing that was their mindset). As for taxes there are plenty of people behind on taxes, doesn’t mean they won’t be paid and definitely doesn’t mean they should be burned at the stake. For the rest of my 2 cents — the city paid for a business to relocate when a structure next door was compromised, which the city didn’t own any of these buildings but yet they paid for the relocation of the business, so try to figure out why the city does one thing for one and something completely different for another. . Report Reply 0 replies · active 295 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down Concerned Person · 295 weeks ago Comments on Cowley County Newscow Report Reply 0 replies · active 295 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down Home Town Boy · 295 weeks ago The City was wrong and should pay up! I have seen people posted in the paper for being 2 and 3 years behind on taxes and they don’t tear down their houses. Maybe the City could just pay the suit off out of the contingency account they always pay the hospital electric bill with. Those people should hire a contractor and doze down City Hall. Report Reply 2 replies · active 295 weeks ago 12Next » Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments by Shane Farley, Newscow.net and Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow â€” A Burden couple is suing the City of Wellington over a house that was allegedly demolished without their knowledge in the spring of 2013.Tevra Venn and her husband, Jasen Venn, filed the suit this summer. A pretrial conference in the case, set for this week, was postponed.The couple is seeking a judgement in excess of $75,000.The property in question is located at 806 S. Cherry St. in the southern portion of Wellington. According to the suit complaint, it was a first home for the Venns and recently they were working to remodel it and have it as an investment property to be rented.Those plans changed in the summer of 2013 when the couple learned their house and a detached out building on the property were gone. A man who had been taking care of the lawn for the Venns told the couple the structures were no longer standing.â€œHe asked when we had made the decision to take down the house and garage,â€ Tevra Venn said in a brief interview with NewsCow. â€œAnd I was confused, I said, â€˜What? The house is gone?â€™ And he said, â€˜yes, itâ€™s gone.â€™â€Neither the Venns or any tenant was living at the residence when the issue with the city began.Tevra Venn did some investigating and learned the demolition had been performed by a contractor on behalf of the City of Wellington. In the suit, the Venns accuse city officials of failing to properly notify all interested parties.That includes the bank that had loaned the Venns the money to purchase the home. The couple continues to pay a mortgage on that residence, even though it no longer stands. Materials inside the residence, intended to be used for the remodel, were also destroyed.Tevra Venn said she approached the city looking for answers before deciding to file the suit.She acknowledged the exterior of the home wasnâ€™t in the greatest of shape, but she said the interior had been partially remodeled and the couple had purchased new siding they planned to install.Power to the home had been disconnected so that repairs to the electrical system could be made.In the suit, the couple contends the decisions leading to demolition were made through government action taken on April 2, 2013. The home was gone just over three months after that when the couple learned of it.Tevra Venn wonders how a property could be deemed in need of demolition and brought to the ground in such a short time frame. She also contends that city officials seemed unreceptive of her attempts to settle the issue amicably without a lawsuit being filed.The suit accuses the city of trespassing on the property by failing to give proper notice of the demolition and for being negligent in formulating a lawful plan to demolish the buildings.In an answer filed by the city in district court in August of this year, Mulvane attorney Michael Brown, legal counsel for the city, denied claims the city of Wellington did anything unlawful and contested the accusation that proper notification had not been given to the appropriate parties.In a city public hearing report filed by the Wellington Code Compliance Office to the Wellington City Council on April 2, 2013, it stated the 806 S. Cherry Street structure was deemed â€œunsafe and dangerousâ€ and was recommended for demolition. It was one of seven properties on the agenda that gained demolition approval through a resolution.The report said on Feb. 5, 2013, a public notification was made and placed in the legal newspaper, stating the taxes had not been paid in one year and contact could not be established by the owners.It was also observed:â€œExterior inspection was made of the property at a reasonable time and date. The primary residence and garage had been deemed unsafe due to damage and decay. Highly visible evidence of water saturated exterior walls present. Roof covering on rear and garage are worn and may not provide a weatherproof seal. Foundation, where visible, shows cracks, fissures and leanings.â€The appraised value of the building at demolition according to the Sumner County Appraiser was $4,750.The council approved the resolution unanimously to remove the structure. Council members at the time included Kim Woodrow, John Brand, Larry Shimer, Dana Anderson, Larry Shimer, Lanny Taylor, Terry Nunemaker and Jan Korte.Follow us on Twitter.