Skip to comments.
Half Moon Bay grapples with $36.8 million judgment against it
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 12/18/7
| John Coté
Posted on 12/18/2007 8:00:35 AM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last

The Beachwood property, the judge ruled, became a wetlands after the city did work in the area.
1
posted on
12/18/2007 8:00:39 AM PST
by
SmithL
2
posted on
12/18/2007 8:01:28 AM PST
by
SmithL
(...and Happy Holy Days to you!)
To: SmithL
"Walker ruled that
the city had created the wetlands - and damaged the property - by botching a storm drain project and by allowing dirt to be removed for a nearby housing development. Its wetlands status meant the plot could not be developed under state coastal regulations.
...
Half Moon Bay, like 30 other Bay Area cities, is insured through the Association of Bay Area Governments. That insurance pays up to $20 million for an approved claim. But it doesn't cover the Half Moon Bay case, in which
the city was found to have seized private property without paying just compensation." Just too bad for the city. Let them be a lesson for others.
3
posted on
12/18/2007 8:05:35 AM PST
by
sionnsar
(trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
To: SmithL
Paying the judgment outright appears to be out of the question. The City Council said: "The very existence of our city government is threatened." I doubt if the City Council is ever too concern when their anti-growth policies threaten the livelihood of its citizens.
To: SmithL
In six months we begin construction.....of DELTA CITY!
5
posted on
12/18/2007 8:07:15 AM PST
by
domenad
(In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
To: domenad
Don’t a bunch of Dean Koontz novels happen here?
6
posted on
12/18/2007 8:10:44 AM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: SmithL
could they make payments ? a million a year for 37 years ?
( or more years, taking the juice into consideration)
it would be 10% of the budget, which they should be able to absorb by cutting out waste/fraud.
7
posted on
12/18/2007 8:14:10 AM PST
by
stylin19a
To: SmithL
"A court might require Half Moon Bay to put up a multimillion-dollar security bond just to fight the decision."
And who in their right mind would write a $36 million appeal bond for an entity that probably can't scratch together $5 mill in current assets and is threatening to just disband if they lose on appeal?
8
posted on
12/18/2007 8:15:37 AM PST
by
joebuck
To: stylin19a
hahaha thats funny
Pay for their mistakes, haha
Maybe in a alternate universe.
9
posted on
12/18/2007 8:17:20 AM PST
by
winodog
( It really is all about the benjamins)
To: SmithL
A slow-growth bloc had won a majority on the City Council in 1996
To: SmithL
Has the city considered undoing what it did to make the property a wetland and appealing its wetland designation? It seems like that would be far cheaper than paying for the land they destroyed.
11
posted on
12/18/2007 8:22:58 AM PST
by
KarlInOhio
(Government is the hired help - not the boss. When politicians forget that they must be fired.)
To: sionnsar
Dealing with small-town local governments is such a PITA! My Dad found it much easier, and cheaper, to just bribe them!
I know someone who had a similar problem to this. Her house was on the banks of the Cuyahoga in a small town. So, technically, a wetland. But her side yard was always dry, and that’s where the swingset and sandbox were. The small town re-graded the street, and the water ran into her yard and pooled. She added fill dirt to make it a dry area for her kids again. The city got an injunction against her, and she had to remove the fill. Now, for most of the year, she has a bug infested swamp for a yard!
To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
“She added fill dirt to make it a dry area for her kids again. The city got an injunction against her, and she had to remove the fill. Now, for most of the year, she has a bug infested swamp for a yard!”
Insanity....
13
posted on
12/18/2007 8:30:22 AM PST
by
HereInTheHeartland
("We have to drain the swamp" George Bush, September 2001)
To: HereInTheHeartland
One of my favorite “bribery” stories. My father was building a development serviced by the City of Cleveland Water Dept. The City wouldn’t respond to request for hookups, until they discovered that my Dad was putting a bottle of Jim Beam at every location where he needed a water connection. From then on, they responded immediately, and did as many as a dozen a day!
To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
Ummm... how was the quality of the hookups done later in the day? *\;-)
15
posted on
12/18/2007 8:48:04 AM PST
by
sionnsar
(trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
To: SmithL
Will the city have to post an appeal bond?
I hope the developer begins forclosure proceedings.
Then again there IS a provision for municipal bankrupcies under the new bankrupcy code.
16
posted on
12/18/2007 8:48:49 AM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
according to this your friend can sue for an illegal taking.
This is not really new law, this is just evidence that city governments believed they can push people around because they have deeper pockers.
17
posted on
12/18/2007 8:52:44 AM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: SmithL
The owner of the property was blackmailed into giving the city $1 million dollars for a waste treatment facility, then denied the use of his property.
He also had a hotel that was nearing completion in Half Moon Bay destroyed by arson.
Then the city wants to take his property by declaring them wetlands.
This guy should bankrupt the city just on principle.
18
posted on
12/18/2007 8:54:26 AM PST
by
VeniVidiVici
(No buy China!!)
To: VeniVidiVici
bet the city is reaaaaly going to love that municipal bankrupcy law. The debt is not so easy to evade just by dissolution. Otherwise cities would be dissolving and reforming every time they lost a suit.
19
posted on
12/18/2007 9:09:39 AM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: SmithL
The property, known as Beachwood, is owned in trust by Palo Alto developer Charles "Chop" Keenan, whose trustee bought it in 1993 for $1 million in a foreclosure sale and planned to build an 83-unit residential subdivision.24 ACRES..on PCH for $1 million..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 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