We are encouraged to settle matters via the legal system, but matters of this type invariably end up like this, and predictably it is the legal empire that ends up with all the marbles. The Connell vs County fiasco was another case in point. Lawyer advertising is very misleading in that it often compares their service with a winning lottery ticket.
City was morally wrong to claim that building a road in a greenbelt had no impact upon nearby residents. City's position means that they are suggesting that greenbelts have no value and thus city should stop advocating for greenbelts.
But the impacted residents are renters, not owners, so law says they can respond to being impacted by renting someplace else. So they did not have a good legal case.
Comments
Fred Duckels 8 months ago
We are encouraged to settle matters via the legal system, but matters of this type invariably end up like this, and predictably it is the legal empire that ends up with all the marbles. The Connell vs County fiasco was another case in point. Lawyer advertising is very misleading in that it often compares their service with a winning lottery ticket.
Scott Wedel 8 months ago
City was morally wrong to claim that building a road in a greenbelt had no impact upon nearby residents. City's position means that they are suggesting that greenbelts have no value and thus city should stop advocating for greenbelts.
But the impacted residents are renters, not owners, so law says they can respond to being impacted by renting someplace else. So they did not have a good legal case.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID