• 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
    • 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
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals
  • Obits

County Sued in Federal Court

Adam Bros. Continue Its Quest for Damages from 1999 Stop Work Order


Saturday, September 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!

The County of Santa Barbara isn’t in the clear yet when it comes to litigation from Adam Brothers Farming, Inc., which had a lawsuit filed in federal court on its behalf by attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) Thursday.

The lawsuit claims Adam Brothers is owed money damages for a “temporary taking of private property” when county staff and a consultant declared 95 acres along Highway 1 to be wetlands. Adam Bros. owned the land and was prepping it to be farmed, but the wetlands 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 and awarded more than $7 million in damages and attorney fees and costs to the farming company, the largest decision to ever go against Santa Barbara County.

But a state Court of Appeal reversed the ruling, and the California Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing county officials to breathe a big sigh of relief, especially in light of the county’s tight fiscal situation. “This is great,” said a relieved 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal after Chief Deputy County Counsel Mike Ghizzoni announced to the board during its June budget discussion that the high court wouldn’t hear the case. “We have a little bit of breathing room … it’s turned out to be one of those unexpected gifts to the taxpayers of Santa Barbara County.” The county had about $5.4 million in a litigation fund in case of a loss in the case.

But the problems are back in the form of a lawsuit in federal court. “Now is the time for accountability,” said PLF attorney Alissa J. Strong in a statement. “The bureaucracy inflicted real damages on this family by violating their constitutional rights. We now seek a federal judgment that enforces the Constitution by requiring the county to pay for the damages it caused.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation is a watchdog organization that is involved in litigating property rights cases around the country.

“Unless the county is made to pay, they have zero incentive to respect the rights of property owners,” said Peter Adam.

The County Counsel’s office hadn’t yet been served with the suit, said Ghizzoni, and so he didn’t want to comment much on the suit. He did say that it wasn’t typical to see a lawsuit in federal court when another court had already ruled on the case. Ghizzoni said one of the key points a press release from the foundation failed to point out was that the Ventura-based Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision on all of its constitutional claims.

The court 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.

Related Links

  • Supreme Court Decides Not to Hear Adam Bros. Case
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

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:
Broken Clouds
Temperature:
51.0°
Wind:
5 ENE

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Blue Green Guide 2008
  • Summer Camp Guide 2008
  • Wedding Guide 2008
  • SBIFF 2008 All Access
  • 2008 Election Coverage
  • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
  • Calendar of Fundraisers
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Tea Fire 2008
  • The Brief but Violent Life of the Tea Fire
  • Nonprofit Steps in When County Stops Sea Sampling
  • Homeless to Move Along
  • Anti-Gang Action in Santa Barbara
  • Little Dragon Makes Big Return to Santa Barbara
  • Westmont Soccer Scores Big Despite Being Burned Out of House and Home
  1. Tea Fire Cause Is Determined
  2. Dear Prop. 8 Supporters
  3. The Unusual History of the Tea Fire’s Point of Origin
  4. The Tea Fire Devastates the Bohemia of Mountain Drive
  5. Goats to the Rescue
  6. Green Building Techniques Save Home on Mountain Drive
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2008 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.