Round One Goes To Ruttenberg
By Greg L | 1 March 2007 | Rack & Roll Scandal | 5 Comments
David Ruttenberg scored a pretty important minor victory in his battle with the City of Manassas Park yesterday when Judge Millette overturned the City’s denial of his Conditional Use Permit (CUP). It’s a bizarre story that has surprisingly ended well, and might perhaps signal that the chances of justice being served in Manassas Park are beginning to improve.
Ruttenberg got a conditional use permit for Rack & Roll back in the 1991 and was told that his permit was not subject to renewal. Then in January 2006, the city decided that the permit was in fact subject to renewal, and denied a renewal permit citing concerns over the impact of the business on the community, which now appear to be circumstances manufactured by the city’s police department and the Joint Narcotics Task Force. Ruttenberg appealed this denial, and yesterday the judge found that the original CUP should still be in force, and the denial of a renewal application for a CUP in 2006 is irrelevant since the renewal was not legally required. It’s pretty much a technical issue about the Virginia code and Manassas Park’s ordinances. But there’s one piece of this that’s really significant.
This decision establilshes that Ruttenberg has a property interest in the Conditional Use Permit, which is a major point in the appeal before the Fourth Circuit on the consitiutional interests involved. Part of the reason David is appealing is that a court earlier said that Ruttenberg didn’t have standing because there was no property interest involved. Now that a state court has weighed in on this issue in favor of Ruttenberg’s position, it should significantly improve his chances to finally get a fair hearing and obtain justice.
UPDATE: Radley has more:
There’s more good news, though. The judge in the case apparently agreed with Ruttenberg that this is a property rights issue. That’s important because it helps Ruttenberg with his federal case, which he’s now appealing to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. It doesn’t help him with the immunity stuff, but it does help solidify his claim that his civil rights were violated.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
5 Comments
Views: 874
Loading ...
So what now for Dave? Does the City have to grant his permit now? If they grant his permit, what are the chances of him getting his ABC license back? Does he still plan to sell, or does this change things?
If Dave gets his ABC permit, this business can be pretty much rebuilt. If not, he’s in a better position to sell and use the proceeds to help finance his quest for justice. So this doesn’t necessarily change his plans to sell, although it’s going to frustrate the city’s apparent practice (so I’m told) of trying to run off his buyers by saying they won’t get a CUP.
But let’s say he wins the ABC appeal, which is going to be a tough battle. At that point, given that it’s going to be very difficult for anyone to try to harass David out of business in the future, it might be a good idea to stay. After all, when this is all done, what’s Dave going to do?
Come on Greg…would YOU stay in an area that has treated you this way for as long as it has David?? I know I wouldn’t, and I’ve lived here nearly all my life. I imagine that he will continue to pursue justice in this, but take himself somewhere that he can feel far more safe and secure. That’s what I’d do.
He’s been living, out of necessity, in the pool hall surrounded by security cameras in part because it’s the safest place for him here, in the area, and nobody can live that way forever (maybe you should do a post on those times when his life has actually been in danger because of all this). The federal and state investigations going on now will probably take years to come to fruition (the wheels of justice turn slowly) so, if I were him, I’d get outta Dodge after vindicating myself (CUP and ABC) and selling what’s left of my property. He doesn’t have to be onsite to get the rest of it wrapped up.
Wouldn’t leaving put him in the same “No legal standing” position?
The damage to his life and property has already occurred Batson…in the millions, and many more than that for which he is sueing. He’s selling his property at a huge loss, given the value previous to all that has transpired (as Greg pointed out), so how is it that he would have “no legal standing?”