Driver gets 51 years to life for Adenhart death

jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:22 am, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
>> Steve Sobol wrote:
>>> In article >, weg9
>>> @comcast.net says...
>>
>>>> Whenever you buy a house from someone else, you know at least one
>>>> thing. The people you are buying it from want to sell it, and move
>>>> somewhere else. Why, you may never know. So, you are taking a
>>>> chance that whatever prompted them to leave may also prompt you to
>>>> want to leave at some later time. The question is, is the reason
>>>> an excuse for a lawsuit?
>
> Understand, this was a new development, only some of the people were
> buying from people who were going to move somewhere else, after owning
> a short time (and before the church came).
>
> Anyways, you bring up a good point - if you are buying a house, be
> sure and walk by late Saturday night. You may hear why. :-)
>
>>
>>> The introduction of excessive traffic and noise into my neighborhood
>>> might be. Just because I don't like megachurches? That is probably
>>> not sufficient reason to sue. Since we don't know why the current
>>> homeowners are upset, it's impossible to answer your question in any
>>> specific manner.
>
> Well, since I gave a google search instead of a list of specific
> links, I can understand such a statement. But we do know why, the
> developer and the church conspired to keep the known-only-to-them fact
> of future excessive traffic and noise from people buying the houses,
> which damaged the value of the houses. The "smoking gun" letter
> simply makes it provable in court.
>
>>
>> Yes. If you want quiet, then live out in the country, and either
>> commute to work, or do as I did, and get a job out there also. More
>> and more, there are businesses who intentionally build their
>> factories and offices out in nice places to live, instead of in
>> congested areas. I hated commuting, so I found a job working for a
>> large University out in the suburbs. I lived 6 miles from the main
>> gate for 10 years, and then moved to 1 mile from the main gate for
>> the last 15 years I worked there.
>
> I gotta say, I grew up next to LAX, and I specifically moved out in
> the country for quiet. But between roaming barking dogs, neighbors
> with loud power tools and equipment who are up before the sun,
> roosters too stupid to understand sunup, happy singing coyote death-
> squads, audio-engineer stereo enthusiasts and so forth, it varies.
> Other times, it is so quiet your head has to fill up the silence. "It
> sure is quiet." "Yeah, a little _too_ quiet..."
>
> It can be difficult to get a job in a particular place, too. I was
> lucky enough to have a telecommuting job in the '80's, but wound up
> commuting 90 miles each way anyways because that was isolating, before
> internet/wifi. Since then, only about 6 years local work.
> Frustrating, because I know there are local jobs I'd be perfect for,
> but what can you do? So I benefit from the pay differential between
> OC and SD, and take the train, except when it ****s up like last
> Wednesday. In the past I've commuted, I've put over 200K each on 3
> cars, and had a lot more cars.
>
> jg

I hated commuting. I rode a bike to work (6 miles each way) for 10 years,
and a Honda trail 90 (110 mpg) for another 10. And even then, I moved into a
house that was only 1 mile from the main gate for another 15 years or so, so
I could have walked to work were I not so lazy....:^)

On 12/28/10 4:27 PM, jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:22 am, "Bill > wrote:
>> Steve Sobol wrote:
>>> In article<CpqdnWRYq7JwYIXQnZ2dnUVZ5hWdn...@giganews. com>, weg9
>>> @comcast.net says...
>>>
>>> The introduction of excessive traffic and noise into my neighborhood
>>> might be. Just because I don't like megachurches? That is probably not
>>> sufficient reason to sue. Since we don't know why the current
>>> homeowners are upset, it's impossible to answer your question in any
>>> specific manner.
>
> Well, since I gave a google search instead of a list of specific
> links, I can understand such a statement. But we do know why, the
> developer and the church conspired to keep the known-only-to-them fact
> of future excessive traffic and noise from people buying the houses,
> which damaged the value of the houses. The "smoking gun" letter
> simply makes it provable in court.

Provable of what? I don't think a developer of a commercial property has a
duty to tell potential residents of the developer's residential property who
the tenant of their commerical property might be. Homeowners should do due
diligence and understand the zoning of the commerical properties nearby and
what business or organizations could end up there.

OTOH, if the developer specifically *lied* to the homeowner, as in the
homeowner specifically asked about a mega-church moving into the developer's
nearby commercial development and the developer denied that the church was
moving in, then that could be a case of fraud.

OTOH, if the developer refused to answer that question citing
confidentiality, then I don't see what the developer did wrong.

If the land was zoned so a Mega-Church could move in, then the nearby
homeowners need to understand that a Mega-Church moving in could be a real
possibility.

Personally, I would fault the City of San Diego more than the developer in
allowing the developer to build a building with insufficient parking for the
mega-church, or granting a use-permit for the Mega-church itself.

But then again, it's probably a lot easier to sue a mean-old developer than
City Hall.


- Peter

On Dec 28, 9:52*pm, Peter Lawrence > wrote:
> On 12/28/10 4:27 PM, jgar the jorrible wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 1:22 am, "Bill > *wrote:
> >> Steve Sobol wrote:
> >>> In article<CpqdnWRYq7JwYIXQnZ2dnUVZ5hWdn...@giganews. com>, weg9
> >>> @comcast.net says...
>
> >>> The introduction of excessive traffic and noise into my neighborhood
> >>> might be. Just because I don't like megachurches? That is probably not
> >>> sufficient reason to sue. Since we don't know why the current
> >>> homeowners are upset, it's impossible to answer your question in any
> >>> specific manner.
>
> > Well, since I gave a google search instead of a list of specific
> > links, I can understand such a statement. *But we do know why, the
> > developer and the church conspired to keep the known-only-to-them fact
> > of future excessive traffic and noise from people buying the houses,
> > which damaged the value of the houses. *The "smoking gun" letter
> > simply makes it provable in court.
>
> Provable of what? *I don't think a developer of a commercial property has a
> duty to tell potential residents of the developer's residential property who
> the tenant of their commerical property might be. *Homeowners should do due
> diligence and understand the zoning of the commerical properties nearby and
> what business or organizations could end up there.

Yes, they do have a duty. See the part about on- or offsite
conditions which affect the value of the land in
http://www.dre.ca.gov/pdf_docs/ref_book/ref17.pdf Land scams are so
common most places have many laws and regulations about them, going
back to the Statute of Frauds in 1677.

Anybody can sue for anything, but to win (and not get countersued or
prosecuted for abusing the system, which abuse is called malicious
prosecution) you need to show a duty and a damage. The duty is in the
public report, the "smoking gun" is to show they violated the duty.
Lawyers figure out how to prove damages, but a letter that says "we
can't tell them about this because they won't buy" surely helps that.
I think they didn't find out about the letter until after the lawsuit
was filed, so we can infer that some lawyer saw merit (ie "money") in
the case beyond just a shakedown in the facts known before that. Of
course, some rich people pay lawyers to sue on principle, too, so that
could be a bad inference, but we have a whole group here.

>
> OTOH, if the developer specifically *lied* to the homeowner, as in the
> homeowner specifically asked about a mega-church moving into the developer's
> nearby commercial development and the developer denied that the church was
> moving in, then that could be a case of fraud.

No, the fair-dealing statutes specifically go beyond that.

>
> OTOH, if the developer refused to answer that question citing
> confidentiality, then I don't see what the developer did wrong.
>
> If the land was zoned so a Mega-Church could move in, then the nearby
> homeowners need to understand that a Mega-Church moving in could be a real
> possibility.
>
> Personally, I would fault the City of San Diego more than the developer in
> allowing the developer to build a building with insufficient parking for the
> mega-church, or granting a use-permit for the Mega-church itself.

A good point, certainly.

>
> But then again, it's probably a lot easier to sue a mean-old developer than
> City Hall.

In general, you have to have a claim denied to sue the gummint. It
can be done. There's also the constitutional thing about taking
without recompense. Those are their own specialties, and not
something to be done lightly, often a lost cause unless it is pretty
flagrant death or destruction.

>
> - Peter

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Dec. 26, 1965 - The first Dodge Charger automobile debuted at half-
time at the American Football League championship game between the San
Diego Chargers and the Buffalo Bills at Balboa Stadium. Its appearance
did not help the Chargers; they lost 23-0.