Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 10/29/2005 6:42:31 AM PDT by radar101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radar101

Beautiful.


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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

7 posted on 10/29/2005 6:54:56 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radar101
The city long has maintained that Mesdaq knew the hotel proposal was coming when he purchased the land.

So?

8 posted on 10/29/2005 6:58:25 AM PDT by ItsForTheChildren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.


11 posted on 10/29/2005 7:27:10 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.


12 posted on 10/29/2005 7:31:27 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


14 posted on 10/29/2005 7:41:55 AM PDT by Sometimes A River (No more crony picks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford; Luigi Vasellini
Ahmad Mesdaq, owner of businesses in San Diego including a coffee lounge and cigar factory, this summer will launch an auto registration system in his native Afghanistan that will help authorities stop widespread shipments of explosives and drugs by warlords. Getting Afghanistan back on its feet brings security to the USA, he says.

This guy seems to be some sort of celebrated muslim against terrorism.

15 posted on 10/29/2005 7:47:25 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

20 posted on 10/29/2005 8:30:18 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really needed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson