Skip to comments.
HALF MOON BAY: $36.8 million award for undevelopable land 'devastating to city'
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 11/30/7
| John Coté
Posted on 11/30/2007 7:51:33 AM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
The Eco-Nazis should have to pay for the damage they do. It's a shame for the taxpayers, but they did get the government that they elected.
1
posted on
11/30/2007 7:51:34 AM PST
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
No sympathy for the taxpayers here. They made their own choice to live in Sham Fascistco.
2
posted on
11/30/2007 7:56:53 AM PST
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
To: SmithL
This ruling is a direct result of Del Monte Dunes v. City of Monterey. It's high time. This is going to help give economic worth to natural habitat, open space, etc.
3
posted on
11/30/2007 7:57:17 AM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(Duncan Hunter for President)
To: TXnMA
The taxpayers are in Half Moon Bay.
The paper is in San Francisco.
4
posted on
11/30/2007 7:59:46 AM PST
by
SmithL
(I don't do Barf Alerts, you're old enough to read and decide for yourself)
To: SmithL
I agree. The city should pay the damages since it prevented the owner from making full use of his own land.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
5
posted on
11/30/2007 8:01:09 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: SmithL
googlemapping this shows the site is about a mile from the shore, on the other side of a major highway, along what looks like a hillside. coastal wetland? i don’t think so!
To: SmithL
You shouldn’t try to steal sometihng you can’t afford to buy. The good news is that with 83 more houses and tax payers, perhaps they can afford to pay to buy the land of the next developer.
7
posted on
11/30/2007 8:04:31 AM PST
by
JLS
To: SmithL
The left hates consequences.
Hopefully the developer will get his money or forclose on the whole city.
8
posted on
11/30/2007 8:07:53 AM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: SmithL
Sweet! Good the guy had the money to defend himself against the tyrants. Most people can not.
9
posted on
11/30/2007 8:07:53 AM PST
by
Leisler
(RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
To: SmithL
But Walker disagreed that it had always been wetlands, at one point calling the city's expert witnesses "uninformed" and their opinions on topography and drainage "baseless." That had to hurt.
To: SmithL
11
posted on
11/30/2007 8:09:49 AM PST
by
Enterprise
(Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!)
To: Saundra Duffy
12
posted on
11/30/2007 8:10:57 AM PST
by
Enterprise
(Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!)
To: SmithL
The council now has the unenviable task of dealing with an enormous fiscal problem not of its making, the SF Chronic noted sympathetically.
To: Carry_Okie
Actually puttting economic value on wetlands, etc. is a good thing and helps some of the smarter environmental groups like the nature conservancy.
To: SmithL
Half Moon Bay Soon to become Keenan Bay.
To: SmithL
HALF MOON BAY: $36.8 million award for undevelopable land 'devastating to city' Good. I wonder if anyone was worried before when the developer got a financial screwing by the turds in the city government turning his property into a "wetland".
16
posted on
11/30/2007 8:22:14 AM PST
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
To: from occupied ga
I'd be curious to know how they came up with this value for the land. It seems a little odd that the court would render a $38.6 million judgement for a piece of property that was originally purchased for $1 million.
I'm sure this case isn't over, either . . . the city may just decide to grant the approval in lieu of paying the $38.6 million.
17
posted on
11/30/2007 8:26:56 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
To: SmithL
That is a sweet verdict. I had my own land essentially stolen from me by the city of Port Townsend, Washington. I KNOW the pain of eminent domain.
My stupid liberal friends had no sympathy. Even after my story they still proudly voted no on California Prop 90, eminent domain reform.
It’s very hard to remain friends with these folks and it’s hard to understand how they can be so blind to the suffering it causes the innocent. But they believe it is decisions like these (on the behalf of “evil” developers) that will destroy small towns and cities, etc.
My belief is that it will only take a few such cases until cities that can ill-afford to steal land will simply stop doing it.
Then their belief is that “wetlands” and pristine areas will all be destroyed by development.
And so it goes...
18
posted on
11/30/2007 8:27:32 AM PST
by
agooga
(Struggling every day to be worthy of their sacrifice.)
To: Alberta's Child
Probably the value of 86 residences on the land.
19
posted on
11/30/2007 8:32:12 AM PST
by
cinives
(On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
To: NativeNewYorker

Courtesy of Google Earth.
20
posted on
11/30/2007 8:33:00 AM PST
by
raybbr
(You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 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