|
4347 REVIEW DENIED A city's premature announcement that it would be building an international airport at a given location that impeded sales of property in plaintiff's business park did not result in a taking for which just compensation to plaintiff was required because other landholders in the area were similarly affected by it so it did not result in a special and direct injury; rerouting truck traffic in a way that interfered with but did not prevent access to plaintiff's business premises was not a taking for which just compensation was required.CitationBORDER BUSINESS PARK v CITY OF SAN DIEGO (Inverse Condemnation) 142 CA4 1538 [See: Klopping v City 8 C3 39; Selby v City 10 C3 110; Breidert v So Pac 61 C2 659; Friends of H St v City 20 CA4 152, T/AT 1/94]
|
|
