| Main Menu
|
|
Printerfriendly display
Shaw v Santa Cruz County: Shaw vs.County of Santa Cruz: Overview
Complaint
A Writ
An Injunction and related damages
Other causes of action |
|
|
|
| |
Complaint
Landowner sues County and its officers in connection with property right violations For over 20 years the owners of Liberty Garden, the Shaw’s, have been unable to construct buildings. This is because permission by the local government has been withheld. on September 12 2001 the Shaw’s filed suit in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against the County government and four county government employees for:
 | |
A Writ
Court orders County Planning Department to issue Shaw electric permit Zoning administrator Glenda Hill, Environmental coordinator Kim Tshantz, and Planning Director Alvin James coordinated to illegally block connection of electric power to a permitted well at Liberty Garden. The Superior Court ordered the County to issue the connection permit. The Department’s internal “policy”, that asserted electricity to an approved well was a discretionary power held by the department officer, was negated by the ruling. The court refused to award Shaw’s attorney fee costs at this stage of the litigation. Upon notice of the Court’s refusal to award fees current Planning Director, Tom Buns, reinstituted essentially the same department policy that the court found objectionable.
 | |
An Injunction and related damages
Shaw asks court to issue an injunction preventing continuation of County’s street sweeping dumping at Liberty Garden Public Works Director, Tom Bolich, and the County have been named in connection with the Department’s routine dumping of mid-county area street sweepings at Liberty Garden. The dumping on this private land began in the mid 90’s. The dump site immediately drains into the ecologically refreshed Singer Creek which flows through the heart of Liberty Garden. Discovery is progressing. Trial on this issue is expected in fall 2006.
 | |
Other causes of action
Other causes of action, including civil rights violations and inverse condemnation, will be chronicled at a later time.
 |
|
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
|