Welcome to LibertyGarden.com
Search  
Main Menu  

   
Shaw v Santa Cruz County
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.

Subtopics:  Bullet9 Superior Court
Shaw vs.County of Santa Cruz: Overview
Landowner sues County and its officers in connection with property right violations     Bullet9 Read more...    Written by liberty5
Shaw vs. County of Santa Cruz: Superior Court Pleadings
Verified complaint for trespass, negligence, injunctive relief, taxpayer relief, inverse condemnation, violation of civil rights, declaratory relief and mandamus.     Bullet9 Read more...    Written by liberty5
Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge rules against Liberty Garden
On September 12 2001, Liberty Garden’s owners, Michael and Joanne Shaw brought suit against the County of Santa Cruz and certain County employees for damages in connection with taking the use of Liberty Garden.     Bullet9 Read more...    Written by Michael Shaw
Letter to the Board of Supervisors
One compelling reason for objection is that your authority does not include the power to require a citizen to forsake unalienable rights, guaranteed by the United States and California constitutions...     Bullet9 Read more...    Written by Michael Shaw
Shaw appeals
Summary and briefs     Bullet9 Read more...    Written by liberty5
   
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 ]