i'm a resident of 1424 pulte street. i live directly across from where this proposed bar will go in. i have lived in that department since 1978. i have experience with all the bars on pulte street. there are currently other bars and the neighborhood. polk is gaining a reputation of being a great place to come for pub crawls, and regularly on any week or week and that night, the streets are just teeming with roving bands of drunks going from bars to bars at all hours. it is not only when they open. when they close at 2:00 a.m., there are out front yelling and screaming. i'm afraid of this comes in directly across the street, i will be exposed to more noise and cigarette i am strongly opps bar. thank you. president olague: thank you. john, frank. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have materials on the project. my name is john. the issue, the list of issues for this product. on december 27, the process sponsor was credit 8.48 for the correct location. the lower polk neighbors discussed this proposal and did you worry 12,

pulte walked out of the room with was may 11, the no change. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. this has been an extremely frustrating enforcement case for the planning department. prior to the hearing, i spoke with the enforcement planner who had been handling this, and she wondered if they would show up because they have not showed up, they have not been doing the things they need to be doing in order to come into compliance. there have been very non responsive. actually, we have directed them -- there is an outstanding penalty of $50,000. that may begin within the orbit of the history. 2000, there was a planning commission action that authorized activity at the subject property. it 2009, received a complaint. from 2009 to

pulte walked out of the room with was may 11, the no change. >> thank you, scott sanchez, pl

pulte walked out of the room with was may 11, the no change. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. this has been an extremely frustrating enforcement case for the planning department. prior to the hearing, i spoke with the enforcement planner who had been handling this, and she wondered if they would show up because they have not showed up, they have not been doing the things they need to be doing in order to come into compliance. there have been very non responsive. actually, we have directed them -- there is an outstanding penalty of $50,000. that may begin within the orbit of the history. 2000, there was a planning commission action that authorized activity at the subject property. it 2009, received a complaint. from 2009 to 2010, we work with the project sponsor which dealt with noise emanating from the front seating area, the smoking area. we had sent the notice of violation and penalty to them in may of 2010. it became effective on may 24, 2010. they failed to file an appeal on the notice of violation public. we sent reminders to them in june and july, received no meaningful

we have tried nearly 300 suspects in civilian courts and hundreds of them have been convicted and pult away. so why are we afraid of openness? why do we have to move in the direction of giving up the right of habias corpus, which some day will affect american citizens. we should treat people the way we think we might be treated under dire circumstances. and our dire circumstances are moving right along because we may have real trouble in this country, and we may be subject to the same type of treatment. so we do not need secret prisons nor do we need the torture that goes on in these secret military prisons. [cheers and applause] >> i want to follow up on this with you, governor pawlenty, because you mentioned it in your first answer. we heard a very different opinion from congressman paul. there is a renewed debate about enhance interrogation in the aftermath of the taking out of osama bin laden. two years ago, you would not endorse waterboarding of high-value detainees. you said this, i think clearly we have to weigh the benefits of the information against the damage it causes not on