A Santa Monica apartment owner decided to tear down his six-unit apartment building rather than operate under rent controls. The city refused him permission to tear down the building, however, claiming that its interest in preserving rental housing took precedence over his right to demolish his property. The California Superme Court sustained Santa Monica’s refusal to allow the demolition.
Who owns the building? Sort out the actual, legal, and moral property rights in this case.
- LeoLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes, you need answer; let's see:
Who owns the building? Of cause; the apartment owner - This is the actualy and legal situation in this case.
However, the city should has the rights not to approve the demolish just like the city has the rights to review and approve any poblic building project. In this case, the city has the moral consideration that; if the building is still in good condition then the city could consider to buy out the building and provide rental service to low income people who needs place to stay.
Now, the CSC sustained SM' refusal; I believe it must be under the consideration that the building is no longer safe for rental purpose and might be better off to be demoished.
Anyway, city authority has the rights to approve or dis-approve the public building project so in such a consideration; individual property rights should some how be limited.
Hope this answers your (or your teacher's) question!
- 大吉嶺先生Lv 71 decade ago
Santa Monica公寓所有者，決定了在房租統一下工作倒不如拆毀他的6單元的公寓。 城市拒絕了在一邊主張對一邊決定他以外，一邊保存出賃住宅的事的關心破壞他的所有地的他的權利上優先了一邊拆毀大樓的許可。 加利福尼亞Superme Court支撐了對寬恕破壞的事的Santa Monica的拒絕。
誰所有著大樓？ 請這個情況整理實際的，並且，法律上，道德的產權。Source(s): 自己