Shaw appeals :: LibertyGarden.com :: Liberty and a healthy planet are inseparable

Main Menu

Shaw v Santa Cruz County:
Shaw appeals

Shaw Opening Brief
County Response Brief
Shaw Reply Brief
Crown Point Decision

Summary and briefs

Related links:

Shaw Opening Brief
This case involves private property and a vision. That vision belongs to plaintiffs and appellants Michael Shaw and Joanne Shaw and JM Management Company, and it involves their intention to transform 74 acres of property overgrown with poison oak and other noxious, invasive foreign plants into a vibrant community of homes within a thriving native plant environment. The unfortunate reason that Liberty Garden remans "a vision" rather than reality stems from the actions of Santa Cruz County in repeatedly obstructing the Shaws' attempts to put their property to use. Over the courseof three decades, the defendant and respondent County of Santa Cruz (County) has subjected the Shaws to a never-ending cylce of delays and road-blocks designed to prevent the Shaws from realizing the goals they set out to achieve when they purchased the Liberty Garden Property.
Download Opening brief of plaintiffs and appellants [PDF 27 KB]>

County Response Brief

Download Respondents' Brief [PDF 290 KB]>

Shaw Reply Brief
It has long been recognized in this nation "that government can scarcely be deemed free where the rights of property are left solely dependent on the legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maximx of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred." Unfortunately, defendant and respondent County or Santa Cruz (County) pleases no such importanc on those unalienable rights. Indeed, the County has shown no restraint in subjecting the private property of its citizenry to its own unbending demands.

Download Plaintiffs' and Appellants' Reply Brief [PDF 71 MB]>

Crown Point Decision
This appeal requires us to decide whether a developer may state a claim for relief based on the allegedly arbitrary and irrational denial of a permit application.

Download Crown Point Decision>

Written by liberty5

>>> Browse archive for this topic

Printerfriendly display

Now showing!

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

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