During the SF City Council informational meeting open discussion the topic of the landlords that had their property destroyed while police where capturing a fugitive came up. Councilor Staggers argued that they should be paid because they were innocent. City attorney David Fiddle-Faddle said that the city did file a claim with their liability insurance and were denied. Chief Barthel also said that since one of the tenants living in the building knew the fugitive (the fugitive was trying to find them) that doesn’t totally leave the landlord off the hook.
Huh?
I’m sure we ALL either know or are related to convicted felons or criminals, so does that make us guilty by association? Seems like a strange justification. Chief Barthel also says that if we just give them the money, even if the claim was denied, we would be setting a precedence.
In other words, when the SFPD breaks up innocent people’s property, no matter the circumstance, they won’t pay – EVER.
There is a solution. The city council can write a resolution and put it on the council agenda to award the landlords the money. This is fair for a couple of reasons, first off it shows their is no precedence and these things can be handled on a case by case basis, secondly, there would be public discussion by our legislative body whether it is appropriate to reimburse them.
Of course that would require common sense, prudence and compassion by our city council, something a few of them don’t have.
I would sue the city and go in front of judge Judy. She might want to see what mmm might have to say. Then she could call him out for stretching the truth. National tv would make even kelo want to report the truth. Like Larry the cable guy says That’s funny right there
Per city ordinance, you can’t sue the city. Appeals are subject to judicial review when no such remedy exists. The only way to get the city into court is a class action or constitutional premise. It’ll cost you $50k plus and they’ll keep you in court 8 years. When you win, the city attorney is angry and has the authority to imprison you on false charges.
Lately, I’ve advised citizens to sell and move to a neighboring suburb with full constitutional priveleges. You can’t win when there’s an authoritarian cleptocracy. This city is not citizen friendly. It’s oriented such that real estate developers and carpetbaggers will profit from the eminent churning from resident in and out flow. This is not a home town like other cities in South Dakota.
John Hult wrote a fantastic article about this, that pretty much catches a councilor, the city attorney and the police making misleading statements about the responsibility.
http://www.argusleader.com/story/johnhult/2014/07/18/council-grills-city-attorney/12839859/
How many landlords or home owners too will need to get riders for actions by the police state that the nicest little city in America has become. Mmm is prospering off of us Karsky may as we’ll make a pile too.
I read the Argus article. Finally, they portray truth and see a citizen’s side. I think it’s because they’re about to lose city advertising to the web.
Next, this citizen will get triple citations and city attorney intimidation until repairs are made.
Obviously – you don’t understand the meaning of the word “precedence”. Precedence is established on a “case-by-case” basis. Every case establishes precedence (what happened/was done before) for every subsequent case. This is what law is ALL ABOUT.