• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits

State Supreme Court Declines Review of Suit Against County

Decision Frees Up Badly Needed $5.4 Million for Possible Budget Mending


Friday, June 13, 2008
By Chris Meagher (Contact)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
Digg! Digg!
furl furl
google google
newsvine newsvine
reddit reddit
technorati technorati
Facebook Facebook
Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

Following a week of budgetary doom and gloom, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors received some positive news Wednesday. Chief Deputy County Counsel Mike Ghizzoni informed them that the state's highest court had denied to review a case in which the county was originally found liable to pay but was later vindicated by a reversal from the Court of Appeals. The Santa Maria-based Adam Brothers Farming Inc. , the plaintiff in the case, has a 90 day timetable to file another petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the likelihood of that court taking the case is extremely slim.

The damages award — between $8 and $9 million in damages, fees and interest, the largest the county had ever faced — had been hanging over the county for years. The county had been placing $500,000 to $1 million each year into a litigation reserve account in case it eventually had to pay out money in the case, and the supervisors now have about $5.4 million now open to put to other uses. They could decide to keep the cash in the reserve in case of future litigation, but given the county's current fiscal uncertainty, they could also opt to use some of the money to shore up deficits and restore cuts by as soon as this Friday. “This is great,” said a relieved 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal after Ghizzoni announced the notice from the Supreme Court. Carbajal indicated Thursday he intends to bring up the fact that they could use the money to shore up services during Friday's meeting. “We have a little bit of breathing room,” he said. “Whether that factors into the picture now or next year remains to be seen. Regardless, it's turned out to be one of those unexpected gifts to the taxpayers of Santa Barbara County.”

The case stems from a decision by county staff and a consultant to declare 95 acres along Highway 1 to be wetlands. Adam Bros. owned the land and were prepping it to be farmed, but this designation would have prohibited such activity without certain county permits. The county issued a stop work order against Adam Bros. in 1999, and the company sued the county in 2000. A Santa Maria jury found in 2004 that the wetlands designation was incorrect. But the Ventura-based Court of Appeals decided that Adam Brothers lacked legal standing because the wetlands designation was included in the Orcutt Community Plan, which was adopted just months before the company bought the land. That Adam Bros. had filed the suit too late to meet a filing deadline, according to the appellate court, was also one of the reasons for the reversal. Adam Brothers continues to farm on the property.

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

I guess when you're an ignorant redneck you don't have to obey environmental laws.

BongHit (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"... denied to review..."
Do you mean "declined to review" or "refused to review?"
Isn't correct grammar important to convey the correct meaning when you are in the word business (i.e. news reporting)?

art (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, they heard this on Wednesday and STILL lame-duck-Firestone and Supe. Grey chose to vote against the budget on Friday, a budget that restored some of the damaging cuts?!

at_large (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

EVENT CALENDAR

Previous Month | Next Month

Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

Local Weather

Currently:
Clear Sky
Temperature:
64.9°
Wind:
13 W

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Wedding Guide 2009
  • SBIFF 2009
  • Local Heroes 2008
  • Best Of 2008
  • Tea Fire 2008
  • Blue Green Guide 2008
  • 2008 Election Coverage
  • Calendar of Fundraisers
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Summer Reading
  • Santa Barbara Reads 2009 Chooses Fahrenheit 451
  • East Beach Water Contamination Mystery Continues
  • El Corazón del Perro
  • The Stone Foxes Return to Rock’s Roots
  • Horseback Riding Helps Local Vets
  1. Cottage, Sansum May Fuse
  2. Pacific Capital Bancorp Refutes Takeover Gossip
  3. Santa Barbara Named One of “Ten Pricey Cities That Pay Off”
  4. Santa Barbara Scrapbooks to Close Its Doors
  5. Official Michael Jackson Party Announced
  6. Deceased Man Found in Car on Coast Village Road
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2009 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
This is our Privacy Policy.