WHY THE DELAY?

DALLAS COUNTY IS NOTIFIED THAT THE MOOTED REASONS FOR SIX YEARS OF EXPENSIVE DELAY BY THE DALLAS COUNTY E-911 SERVICE BOARD REQUIRE AN HONEST REASON FOR THE DELAY

Hartung & Schroeder

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

EQUITABLE BUILDING – SUITE 100

PHONE: 515-282-7800                                              608 LOCUST STREET                                                         FAX: 515-282-8700

DES MOINES, IOWA 50309

www.handslawfirm.com

Schroeder@handslawfirm.com

 

      June 5, 2012

Wayne Reisetter

Dallas County Attorney

207 N 9^th Street, Suite A,

Adel, Iowa 50003

Dear Wayne:

            As you may be aware, with the promulgation of the 2012 edition of the Official Dallas County Address Map, the homestead of my client, Carl Hays, has now been appropriately addressed at 26000 O Lane.  As you are also aware, Mr. Hays invested considerable time and effort over the course of several years trying to secure exactly this result.  In fact, his first request a proper address for his property was entered December 15, 2006.  Unfortunately, his requests were wrongfully denied by Dallas County until very recently. 

            Among reasons Dallas County has given for its previous denials of this address are:

1.       "Dallas County cannot change a decision made by the E-911 Board." Pratt ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, p.16
2.       "…the access point on [sic at] Lane 1 is designated 25998 O Avenue." Ibid
3.       "…it was decided by the E-911 Board that the previous ruling was justified due to the GPS location of said driveway."  Ibid P. 20
4.       "…due to safety considerations…there would be no further action by the E911 board to grant Mr. Hays' request." Ibid
5.       "…the assigned number will be plotted by GPS at the center of the primary entrance of the premises and will not approve multiple addresses to premises." Ibid p. 21
6.       "…all of the Plaintiff's [Carl Hays] utility and postal services were established at another address." Ibid p. 22
7.       "Plaintiff did not use that particular drive to access his property."  Ibid
8.       "…the Board felt that the entrances were properly marked." Ibid P. 23
9.       "…it is undisputed that Plaintiff already had two separate E911 addresses assigned to his property as a whole at the time the amended ordinance took effect." Ibid P. 59
10.   "…it was rational for the Board to deny his requests on the basis that Plaintiff had already been assigned two separate E911 addresses." P 59
11.   "24002 260^th Street is a nonexistent address." Ibid P. 60

            With the addressing of 26000 O Lane, it is now established that all the various reasons offered by Dallas County over the years for its failure to address Mr. Hays' homestead properly were not valid or prohibitive reasons.  Dallas County could have -- and eventually did -- grant Mr. Hays the relief he requested, and to which he was entitled.

            Mr. Hays now requests a response from Dallas County regarding the reason for this completely unnecessary delay and his incurring of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to accomplish what should have been done in 2006 when first requested.

            Thank you.  I look forward to your reply.

                                                            Sincerely,

 

Brad Schroeder