Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

April 25, 2006 -- Page 5. Z.B. _ in response to a loud party call. At the time, Haggerty was not at the property, nor did he live at the property; it was rented to a third party. In keeping with a city ordinance, the officer posted a "red-tag" notice on the front window of the property. The notice indicated that an unruly gathering had occurred there, and, according to the ordinance, the notice was to remain posted for 180 days. Any removal of or tampering with the notice would result in additional fines. If another violation occurred with the 180-day period, more penalties would accrue, a,,,,e was not penalized for any more red-tag During the 180 days, H ~, rty violations. At the end of the 180 days, the notice was removed. Haggerty sued, asking the court to declare that the red-tag ordinance was unconstitutional. He argued that he could file suit -- even though the notice already had been removed -- because another notice possibly could occur in the future. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the city. Haggerty's allegation that he could be subject to another posting under the ordinance at some point in the furore was not enough to establish his right to SUe. To proceed with a claim, Haggerty had to show that he had suffered an injury in fact that would be fixed by a favorable decision. However, at the time of Haggerty's suit, the 180-day period had passed. Therefore, any court judg- ment would provide no relief for any injury involving that citation. Importantly, even if the court a~eed that the red-tag ordinance was uncon- stitutionai, past exposure to illegal conduct alone did not support a lawsuit without continuing, present adverse effects. Since Haggerty claimed no con- tinuing effects, merely a possible repetition, he could not continue his lawsuit. see also: FHends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC) Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000). see also: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Adult Entertainment-- Landowner fails to apply for conditional permit for adult business Coart finds owner has to do so before suing over zoning ordinance Citation: Blue Moon Entertainment LLC v. City of Bates City, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 05-2793 (2006) The 8th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction overArkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. MISSOURI (02/10/06) -- Blue Moon Entertainment (Blue Moon) wanted to operate an adult entertainment establislmaent featuring dancing performed by semi-naked women on land it owned within Bates City. The city informed Blue IVloon that it needed to apply for a conditional use @ 2008 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproOuction is prohibited. For more intormatien please call (617) 542-004u. 65