Main street in any town, USA is predominantly populated by car dealerships with huge parking lots full of new and used cars. Then one day a large national retailer (like wal- mart) approaches the city council of any town and says, “ we are looking for a new place to build our headquarters, too bad there is no land available here.”
The city manger and the city council think about it for two seconds, and say , “ will, we can just condemn the car lots and sell the land to you,” and that’s exactly what the city des. The city condemns the land owned by the car dealerships and then sells the land to ther retailer. The public benefit? A large office complex will have much higher property value than a bunch of parking lots so more money flows to the city in form of higher property taxes. (The city manger also receives an bag of money ( $ 5,000) placed on his front porch one morning form an anonymous source.
Obviously, the ousted car lot owners do not view the city’s actions as altruistic. The ousted owners believe the city has stolen their property through the power of condemnation and eminent doman and given it to some one else
Can such conduct give rise to a Rico claim?
Why or why not ?
What other tort liabilities, if any?
They thought about it for 2 seconds...can that be a conspiracy? Other tort liabilities.
The city manager accepting a bribe and taking official action in behalf of the bribe.
The public benefit has to be more than higher taxes. Taxes could have been raised on the lots in the first place.
Whether or not the conduct described in the scenario can give rise to a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) claim would depend on several factors and would require a thorough legal analysis. RICO is a federal law in the United States that primarily deals with organized crime and provides for enhanced penalties and remedies for certain criminal acts associated with criminal enterprises.
To establish a RICO claim, several elements need to be present, including the existence of an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce, a pattern of racketeering activity involving certain predicate offenses, and a direct or indirect injury to a person or business.
In the given scenario, the conduct described would not directly fit into the typical parameters of a RICO claim as it does not involve organized crime or the predicate offenses typically associated with RICO, such as bribery, fraud, extortion, or money laundering. However, if there were additional facts or evidence suggesting a broader pattern of criminal behavior or racketeering activity, it could potentially give rise to a RICO claim.
As for other potential tort liabilities, the scenario mentions the city manager receiving a bag of money. If the city manager accepted a bribe and took official action on behalf of the bribe, that could potentially give rise to a claim of bribery or corruption.
Additionally, the ousted car lot owners may argue that their property was taken through eminent domain or condemnation without just compensation, which could potentially give rise to a claim for violation of their constitutional rights or a claim for inverse condemnation.
Ultimately, the applicability of specific tort liabilities would require a careful examination of the facts, applicable laws, and legal principles by a qualified attorney.