Welcome to LibertyGarden.com
Search  
Main Menu  

    Printerfriendly display  Printerfriendly display    

Shaw v Santa Cruz County:
Shaw vs. County of Santa Cruz: Superior Court Pleadings

Background
History of Land Management
Engaging the Bureaucratic Process
Writ issued against County
County Dumps Toxins at Liberty Garden; Materials Flow Directly into Singer Creek
Burns Demonstrates County’s Continuing Commitment to Deny the Shaw’s Reasonable use of Liberty Garden
Verified complaint for trespass, negligence, injunctive relief, taxpayer relief, inverse condemnation, violation of civil rights, declaratory relief and mandamus.Related links:
Complaint
Depositions
Writ of Mandate
 Memorandum of Decision
 Appeal
Background

In 1985 Michael and Joanne Shaw purchased 75 acres of coastal land located right outside the town in which they lived, La Selva Beach California. The land was zoned for up to 30 homes. Their initial plan involved a building site for their own home and the creation of three new lots. After a torturous three year process the county, in 1988, denied them this use of their land. The County’s reason for denial was the assertion that the Shaws failed to resubmit a geological report that in fact had been resubmitted. During the intervening time the County asserted prohibitions that eliminated the use of nearly 90% of the parcel. The reasons included “public view shed”, “critical fire area” and the like.


History of Land Management

This land, later to be known as Liberty Garden, had been logged, farmed and grazed for well over 100 years prior to the Shaws acquisition. The prior owner used the land for cattle grazing, and as an offsite storage and parking lot for their moving and storage business. After removing the cows and clearing massive amounts of debris and waste Michael began his plant management program. At the time of purchase roughly o­ne half the property was covered in European pasture grass, the rest was an impenetrable thicket covered with walls of poison oak. The management program became labeled Seedbank management – control the seed fall of unwanted plants and nurture the seed production of the desired species. After 20 years the result is the creation of an unparalled native plant oasis.


Engaging the Bureaucratic Process

While engaged in the plant recovery program, Michael undertook an effort to convince county officials that the type of land management that he was pursuing should be encouraged and not discouraged by County policy. He coordinated with county officials to adopt the provisions which are known as Program h. Program h become part of the 1994 County General Plan. Notwithstanding this publicly approved program, no implementing ordinances were ever adopted. The adoption of these General Plan provisions induced the Shaws to continue and to accelerate the commitment to their land management program.


Writ issued against County

In 1995 a permit was issued for the development of water well at Liberty Garden. The issuing agency responded later to objections from the County Planning Department explaining that the permit was issued “because there was no basis for denial”. A municipal quality well was developed at Liberty Garden. With the well permit in hand, Pacific Gas and Electric extended underground utilities, at the Shaws expense, to the property. The Shaw’s attempt to connect power to the well was then blocked by the Planning Department.

On September 12, 2001 the Shaws filed a complaint against the county for taking the use of their land.

After three years of discovery and litigation against the county and four employees, including the Planning Director, the Shaws obtained a writ ordering the electric connection. The court refused to award attorney fees in connection with the writ as requested by the Shaws.

In the process of discovery the Planning Director was replaced. Immediately after the denial of attorney fees the new planning Director, Tom Burns, issued a new policy regarding electrical connections to approved water wells. The “new” policy was virtually identical to the “old” policy which had been negated by the issuance of the writ obtained by the Shaws against the County.


County Dumps Toxins at Liberty Garden; Materials Flow Directly into Singer Creek

In the mid 90’s the county public works department began dumping suburban street sweepings o­n Byers Lane. Byers Lane is a private road owned to the mid point by the Shaw’s. The road had been a through road since the 1800’s until US highway 1 became a freeway in 1970. The unilateral decision to use the end of Byers (alongside the freeway) as a free dump grounds continued, over the Shaw’s objection, until the lawsuit was filed. The County continues to claim the “right” to resume the dumping. The Central Water Quality Control Board has deviated from there own rules to sanction the dumping. Discovery o­n this element of the suit is now being processed.


Burns Demonstrates County’s Continuing Commitment to Deny the Shaw’s Reasonable use of Liberty Garden

In recent communications Director Burns has further obfuscated the Shaws use of the land:

  • Refusing the Shaws demand that Liberty Garden’s zoning conform to the County’s General Plan in accordance with state law.
  • In respect to the construction of a 700 square foot maintenance shed
  • In respect to the construction of a composting toilet restroom facility


    Written by liberty5

>>> Browse archive for this topic

 Printerfriendly display  Printerfriendly display    
  
Now showing!  
The Liberty Garden Movie

Shaw v Santa Cruz County: Shaw Appeals  

Disincentives preclude innovation  
“Because of the Endangered Species Act—what developer or land owner would want to purchase or own the land and do what we are doing? Disincentives preclude innovation. It is no wonder that no o­ne else is following this common sense formulation for success: Pull the weeds and manage the plants and the hydrology.”

- Michael Shaw

Liberty Garden takes on confiscatory court ruling  

“Twenty-five years ago, the Court posited that a regulation of private property ‘effects a taking if [it] does not substantially advance [a] legitimate state interes[t]... Today we correct course.  We hold that the ‘substantially advances’ formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed conclude that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.”

-Ron Zumbrun

Read more>


Login  




 


 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!

[About Us | Terms of use | Privacy policy | Accessibility statement ]