My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:42:00 AM
Creation date
7/27/2007 3:20:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/02/2007
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.
/
233
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
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />At trial, the landowners had waived their claims against the <br />constitutionality of the zoning codes in question. This ultimately <br />. undermined their case on appeal, because the court had to assume <br />that the general plan and development code were valid-thus, any <br />actions of the county officials to enforce those ordinances was also <br />valid. The landowners argued that even if the actions of the offi- <br />cials were authorized by the zoning ordinances, their intent to ex- <br />tort property made them liable under RICO. The court was not <br />persuaded by this argument. <br />The county officials were merely ac-ting in their respective capacities <br />when they engaged in the incentive-based zoning, and the incentives <br />were equally available to the landovvners as well as other develop- <br />ers. Further, the court found that none of acts the landowners claimed <br />were predicate to extortion were "inherently wrongful"; most of the <br />examples the landowners cited were instances where zoning officials <br />were exp1ai.n.ing how the zoning scheme worked or rejecting claims <br />that it was invalid. <br />Since the landowners could not prove the existence of a.LLY predicate <br />acts, the lower court's decision to dismiss it was propeL <br /> <br />See also: Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S. Ct. <br />3292, 871. Ed. 2d 346, Fed. Sec. 1. Rep. (CCH) P 92086 (1985). <br /> <br />Annexation-City seeks to annex cluster of adjacent <br />unincorporated areas under lislandl statute <br /> <br />Annexation contested after exclusion of one property breaks <br />contiguous property line <br /> <br />Citation: Costco Wholesale Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 2007 WL <br />1633386 (Or. 2007) <br /> <br />OREGON (06/07/07)-Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc., NikeInc., and <br />Costco Wholesale Corp. OVi'lied property in an urban unincorporated <br />area adjacent to the city of Beaverton. The city ex-panded its bound- <br />aries, eventually encircling the properties on all sides so that the land <br />in question became an "island." Oregon law authorized a city to an- <br />nex unincorporated territory that was encircled by its boundaries. <br />In 2004, Beavertonadopted a resolution announcing its intent to <br />annex the territory. In 2005, however, the city excluded all property <br />oVi'lied or leased by Nike from its annexation proceedings. As a result, <br />the city boundaries continued to form a ring around the territory as <br />a whole, but it no longer had boundaries that were contiguous to the <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />162 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.