HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2015 00 Misc Distributed at the Meeting Distributed at the
Meeting //1? - /
CITY OF YAKIMA
LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
200 South Third Sheet,Yaldma, Washington 98901 (509)575 -6(B0 Fax (509)575 -6160
PRMLEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. COVERED BY THE ATTORNEY -CUENT AND ATTORNEY
WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES
MEMORANDUM
November 17, 2015
TO Tony O'Rourke, City Manager
Debbie Cook, City Engineer
FROM Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT Temporary Street Closures — Inverse Condemnation Claims
Issue Is a business owner entitled to damages for "loss of business" or other
damages when the City temporarily closes the street to construct street improvements
or repairs?
Discussion Case law holds that the business owner is not entitled to damages under
a "takings" claim (inverse condemnation) where the street closure is temporary and the
business has an alternate street access
The key case in Washington state is Mackie v City of Seattle, 19 Wash.App 464, 576
P 2d 414 (1978) In this case the city actually closed a street fronting the plaintiff's
business However, the business had an alternate access to the property — even
though the alternate access was less convenient for the business owner and
customers The court held
Walker v State, 48 Wash 2d 587, 591, 295 P.2d 328, 331 (1956), said
Re- routing and diversion of traffic are police power regulations Circuity of route,
resulting from an exercise of the police power, is an incidental result of a lawful
act. It is not the taking or damaging of a property right.
We also find Hoskins v Kirkland, 7 Wash.App 957, 960 -61, 503 P 2d 1117, 1120 (1972), holding
in an analogous situation
If, however, the landowner still retains an alternate mode of egress from or
ingress to his land, even if less convenient, generally speaking he is not deemed
specially damaged
November 17, 2015
Page 2
The plaintiff and his customers still have access to the property The fact that access is deflected
a few blocks and will be inconvenient due to the closure of South Southern Street in the next block
does not raise such inconvenience to the status of a special injury not suffered by the general
public. The plaintiff does not have standing to challenge the Board of Public Works' action
Banchero v City Council, 2 Wash.App 519, 524 -25, 468 P.2d 724 (1970) See generally Annot.,
73 A. L. R.2d 689, 701 (1960), 68 A.L.R. 1285, 1293 (1930)
Mackie, supra at 469 -70 See also, Pande Cameron v Central Puget Sound Regional
Transit Authority, 610 F Supp 2d 1288, 1303 -04 (W D Wash 2009)
Distributed t th
Meeting 1/ /7 ,s
To Yakima City Council Members
From Communications & Public Affairs Director Randy Beehler
Subject: Working Washington Minimum Wage Petitions
Date Friday, November 13t 2015
Council Members,
On Tuesday, November 9th, Working Washington, an organization dedicated to increasing the
minimum wage in the state of Washington, staged rallies in various cities across the state,
including Yakima, as part of a nationwide effort to draw attention to minimum wage laws The
organization put on a noon rally at the Millennium Plaza that included several speakers
Following the rally at the Millennium Plaza, the group marched to City Hall I escorted the group
into the Council Chambers where one of its leaders, Guadalupe Sanchez, presented me with
petitions signed by more than 1000 people calling for a $15 minimum wage in the state of
Washington The petitions were provided to the City Clerk's office where they were processed
according to City policy
Ms Sanchez informed me during the presentation of the petitions that members of Working
Washington plan to appear before the Council during its November 17th business meeting
Please let me know if you have any questions about the petitions received from Working
Washington on November 9th