Skip to comments.
Jury gives man forced from store $7.7 million
San Diego Union ^
| October 29, 2005
| Greg Moran
Posted on 10/29/2005 6:42:30 AM PDT by radar101
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
1
posted on
10/29/2005 6:42:31 AM PDT
by
radar101
To: radar101
I love the little guy fighting City Hall! When you take it, you can win! His business was unjustly seized to enrich a powerful corporation, not for public use. And the jury's verdict sends San Diego a message. Don't tread on average people.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
2
posted on
10/29/2005 6:46:27 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: radar101
3
posted on
10/29/2005 6:49:05 AM PDT
by
Crawdad
(So the guy says to the doctor, "It hurts when I do this.")
To: radar101
Next the City of San Diego will raise taxes on those using hotels to cover this.
4
posted on
10/29/2005 6:50:48 AM PDT
by
proudpapa
(of three.)
To: radar101
Good!
Maybe it will make governments think twice before using the power of eminent domain for private interests, no matter what the Supreme Court says!
5
posted on
10/29/2005 6:52:03 AM PDT
by
GatorGirl
To: radar101
Using eminent domain for economic benefits has been a controversial development in the law. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case from Connecticut that it was appropriate for governments to take land for that purpose.Be prepared to see that the award for damages be vacated, because of the Supreme Courts decision.
6
posted on
10/29/2005 6:53:37 AM PDT
by
rerat0120
To: radar101
Bruce W. Beach, the attorney who represented the city, said it was unknown whether the verdict would be appealed. Of course it will be appealed. A three judge panel will adjust the jury's award to something less, the developer will pay it and that will be the end of it. Juries rule by emotion on civil award cases, seems like the judgments are always reduced on appeal.
To: radar101
The city long has maintained that Mesdaq knew the hotel proposal was coming when he purchased the land. So?
To: radar101
The one thing that concerns me; I wonder how much Ahmed will give to muslim "charities"??
9
posted on
10/29/2005 7:19:03 AM PDT
by
Luigi Vasellini
(60% of Saudis, 58%of Iraqis, 55%of Kuwaitis,50% of Jordanians married 1st or 2nd cousins. LOL!!!)
To: rerat0120
It ain't necessarily so. Assuming that the actions of the city were constitutional, it does not mean that they were therefore immune from attack on other grounds.
Here, the issue seems to be not whether the property could be seized under eminent domain, but how much must be paid for the seized property.
The jury's answer to that question was: enough so that you wished that you had never even thought of the idea.
10
posted on
10/29/2005 7:26:59 AM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
To: Luigi Vasellini
"The one thing that concerns me; I wonder how much Ahmed will give to muslim "charities"??"
Perhaps nothing... there are Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc who live (and emmigrate from) the Middle East.
To: GatorGirl
"...no matter what the Supreme Court says!"
Sigh...
Conservatives want a non-activist SCOTUS until their ox is gored. This is a case-in-point (as was Shivo).
The SCOTUS simply ruled that the US Constitution did not prohibit the ED actions of CT. That is true, and this (sadly) isn't the first case. Anyone else remember the Detroit "Poletown" GM factory?
If you want legislation changed for eminent domain, then it must be changed by elected officials. If you want the US Constitution to be change, it must be changed by legislation.
To: radar101
What's the statutory limit on claims in California? In Massachusetts, it's $1,000,000 for public officials and $100,000 for public employees. It's a wonder that business survives with the disproportionate liability it carries compared to government.
I doubt ahmed will see anything remotely close to the award.
13
posted on
10/29/2005 7:34:36 AM PDT
by
LoneRangerMassachusetts
(Some say what's good for others, the others make the goods; it's the meddlers against the peddlers)
To: TWohlford
You think the Kelo case was correctly decided, ie, that the Constitution allows governments to condemn land for *any* purpose?
I don't think that's what the Framers had in mind.
To: TWohlford; Luigi Vasellini
To: radar101
I'm glad to hear he was awarded something. The Gaslamp Quarter is a beautiful area of San Diego. Why do they need another hotel, there are loads of them within walking distance of the Gaslamp?! Plus they have great public transportation in San Diego.
16
posted on
10/29/2005 7:51:12 AM PDT
by
senorita
(just like wine, getting better with age)
To: radar101
As someone who used to frequent Ahmet's business, I say good for him. San Diego's city council and former mayors were corrupt scum.
17
posted on
10/29/2005 7:51:18 AM PDT
by
Cenobite
(Can't spell unethical without the U.N.)
To: Cenobite
I used to get cigars there myself a number of years ago when I lived in SD. Kinda still miss that town sometimes.
18
posted on
10/29/2005 8:14:40 AM PDT
by
tarawa
To: radar101
The hotel developer will have to pay the judgment under terms of its agreement with the city. Until government apparatchiks are forced to pay for their criminal acts such as this land grab (yes, I know that this was not a criminal trial, but in a just world it would have been), either through $$ or jail time, this kind of theft will continue unabated.
19
posted on
10/29/2005 8:22:19 AM PDT
by
The Electrician
("Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase.")
To: radar101
The city long has maintained that Mesdaq knew the hotel proposal was coming when he purchased the land.What kind of half-assed defense is that? Even if he was just speculating, that's free enterprise. Since he sank $2.5 Mil cash into the property, not to mention his time and the value of the business he built, he was a serious businessman. This award shouldn't be reduced by very much.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson