My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:27:11 AM
Creation date
3/14/2017 12:27:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/05/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Bulletin <br /> October 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 20 <br /> Zoning <br /> found there was "no reason to think that the process accorded to BEM <br /> was inadequate" as BEM had received a notice and opportunity to be <br /> heard at every step. <br /> As to BEM's equal protection claim,the court explained that in order <br /> n claim,BEM had to <br /> to succeed on such a"class of one" equal protectio <br /> show that it was "intentionally treated differently from others similarly <br /> situated and that there [was] no rational basis for the difference in <br /> treatment." BEM had argued that where official action is motivated <br /> only by "sheer malice, vindictiveness, or malignant animosity," the <br /> victim states an equal protection claim and is not required to provide <br /> evidence of a better-treated comparator. The court found [t]he law on <br /> that point is up in the air," but "assume[d] for present purposes that <br /> BEM's position [was] correct." Nevertheless, the court found that <br /> BEM's claim failed because there was "no evidence of animus in this r <br /> case." The court found no evidence that the Village was motivated by <br /> malice or animosity.Rather,it was responding to a myriad of complaints <br /> by neighbors against BEM. "As a result, although the Village pursued a <br /> g <br /> a <br /> camPi n against continued slaughter activities by BEM at its current <br /> location,it had a rational basis for doing so,"concluded the court. <br /> See also:Hussein v. City of Perrysburg, 617 EM 828(6th Cir. 2010). � <br /> See also: Williamson County Regional Planning Com'n v. Hamilton. <br /> Bank of Johnson. City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126 <br /> (1985). <br /> Case Note: <br /> In addressing the procedural due process claim, the court warned that if <br /> procedural due process claims made are actally taki <br /> un.gnsthey are <br /> Wisc <br /> unripe to first be brought in federal court. Rather, under Wisconsin law, mi <br /> inverse condemnation procedure allows a property owner to seek just <br /> compensation by initiating condemnation proceedings(see Wis. Stat. §32.10). <br /> Here, the court found that BEM's financing agreement with the bank and its <br /> "liberty interest in slaughter" both represented interests independent of the <br /> property itself, thus allowing BEM's due process claim to be "properly <br /> construed as (non-takings)procedural due process claims, and therefore ripe <br /> [for adjudication by the federal court]." <br /> Case Note: <br /> In its decision, the court also noted another, independent reason to reject <br /> BEM's equal protection claim: BEM failed to suggest a similarly situated <br /> comparator(which was in similar circumstances and treated differently than <br /> BEM). <br /> ©2016 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.